A probate solicitor who brought a claim against a residuary beneficiary for refusing to engage in the distribution of an estate for over seven years has asked for directions from the court as to whether a gift had been made and how to wind up the remainder of the estate.
Nicola Lowe, solicitor and managing partner at Harold G Walker Solicitors in Wimborne and administrator of the estate of Jean Phyliss Norman, sought a direction against Lucy Daniells, granddaughter of the deceased, who was entitled to the residue of the estate but had refused to cooperate with its administration.
HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court in Bristol), confirmed in his judgment that a gift vests immediately in a beneficiary, regardless of whether the gift is welcome or wanted, and made a Benjamin order to allow the claimant to wind up the estate.
Jean Phyllis Norman died in 2018 aged 99, leaving the residue of her estate, worth around £185,000, to Daniells. Two other grandchildren were also named as substitute residuary beneficiaries. Mrs Norman’s will, executed in 1997, left her estate to her husband, Stanley, also appointed as sole executor, provided he survived her by 28 days. He predeceased her, as did the named sole executor. Pecuniary legacies were left to three specific grandchildren, with the residuary of the estate to Daniells. Should the residuary gift to the defendant fail, it would be shared between two of the grandchildren mentioned in a previous clause.
Between 2018 and 2020 multiple attempts were made to notify the defendant of her residuary interest, including a request for signature of a deed of renunciation to enable her cousin to apply for a grant of representation, without success. In November 2020, email correspondence elicited responses from the defendant indicating she wanted nothing to do with the matter.
A process server attended Daniells’ address in 2021 and made contact but was unable to persuade her to accept or sign the deed. An order to pass over prior claims to a grant was made in May 2021, followed by an application for Letters of Administration, made and granted in September 2021. Administration of the estate followed, and was completed, save for the gift of the residue of the estate to the defendant.
Further requests were made asking Daniells to confirm she did not want the funds in writing, with a process server attending the address twice more in 2023, but no reply was ever received.
In August 2025 Lowe applied to the court seeking directions. The court was asked to determine whether Daniells’ conduct was a disclaimer of her interest, allowing the residue to be distributed to the two substitute beneficiaries. Daniells did not acknowledge service, file evidence, or attend the hearing.
At the hearing, HJH Matthews considered whether the gift to Daniells had failed. He held that a gift vests immediately in a beneficiary, regardless of whether they have knowledge of it, although they are within their rights to refuse it, once aware.
He then considered whether Daniells had mental capacity, concluding that her refusal to engage, use of insulting language and apparent misunderstanding of her role in the matter did not of themselves indicate a lack of mental capacity. As the substitute beneficiaries were not party to the claim, he did not wish to make a decision whether the Daniells had disclaimed the gift.
The court nevertheless agreed that the estate administration should be concluded and that Lowe required protection. HJH Matthews identified two options: payment of the residue into court and discharge the administrator from her office, resulting in the substitute legatees needing to bring proceedings, or the making of a Benjamin order. This would allow Lowe to distribute the estate without extinguishing any of Daniells’ rights. Daniells would still have the option of making a claim against the substitute beneficiaries if she wished.
This latter course, protecting the administrator from personal liability for distributing the residue, was preferred, with with HJH Matthews concluding it was “unlikely” Daniells would seek a claim against the substitute legatees, although he said he”could not rule it out.”
He added:
“If any such claim were brought, it would be a matter for the defendant to make the claim, and for the substitute legatees to defend it, if they so wished.”
