Print article
Author
Author
The recent case of Lowe v Daniells [2025] EWHC 3297 (Ch) considered how to deal with the situation of a residuary beneficiary refusing to engage with the estate’s solicitors.
Jean Phyllis Norman died in May 2018 aged 99. The residue of her estate, worth approximately £185,000, was left to her granddaughter Lucy Daniells. Mrs Norman had named two other grandchildren as substitute residuary beneficiaries.
The solicitors administering the estate had spent several years trying to communicate with Lucy. Initially, their correspondence by letter went unanswered. They were later provided with an email address by a family member and Lucy did respond to emails but made it clear she wanted nothing to do with the administration of the estate. The executors had died so letters of administration needed to be taken out. Lucy refused to cooperate in renouncing her right to letters of administration as residuary beneficiary and said there was nothing in the estate for her, despite the solicitors making it clear that there was a substantial amount due to her. The solicitors also arranged for a process server to visit her in person but Lucy again made it clear that she didn’t want to be involved and didn’t believe there was anything for her in the estate. She refused, however, to put that in writing or sign anything to that effect.
A partner at the solicitor firm was able to secure letters of administration. She then brought a claim seeking directions and asked the court to declare that Lucy had disclaimed her interest in the estate by her conduct, meaning the residue could be distributed to the two substitute beneficiaries. The claim was served on Lucy but she neither acknowledged service nor attended the hearing.
HHJ Matthews confirmed that a gift vests immediately, whether or not the recipient has knowledge of it. The recipient does however have the right to refuse the gift once they become aware of it. The judge highlighted that, although not an issue he needed to decide in this case, this then presented the problem of whether or not the refusal of the gift is retrospective, i.e. whether the gift ever vested in the first place.
The judge considered Lucy’s mental capacity, given that she believed there was nothing for her in the estate despite being told to the contrary, but decided that there was no evidence to suggest that she lacked mental capacity. He therefore proceeded to consider whether he could, and if so should, rule that Lucy had disclaimed her gift.
HHJ Matthews decided he could not rule on whether or not Lucy had disclaimed her gift because the substitute beneficiaries had not been made parties to the claim. He did however agree that a solution needed to be found to protect the administrator’s position and advance the administration of the estate. He outlined two possibilities: (a) pay the money into court; or (b) make a Benjamin order and decided that the latter was the better option.
The Benjamin order made gave liberty to the administrator to distribute the estate on the basis Lucy had disclaimed her gift but did not go so far as to extinguish any rights which Lucy might have to the gift. The right for Lucy to bring a claim against the substitute beneficiaries to recover her gift therefore still exists but the onus is on her to do so. In the meantime, the administrator is protected from any suggestion by Lucy that she has not administered the estate correctly.
This case presents personal representatives with an alternative option to paying funds into court when faced with a recalcitrant beneficiary. For advice on how to manage these situation, or if you have questions about disputes over the administration of an estate, please contact Sarah O’Grady.