SHAME & SCANDAL IN THE FAMILY

As an example of what can go wrong if you fail to make a will, Lyons & Anor v Kerr-Robinson [2016] EWHC 2137 (Ch) (24 August 2016) is about as good as you can get.

Cynthia Lyons was born in Jamaica and died aged 84, domiciled in England. She died intestate, leaving property both in Jamaica and in England. There were competing parties for the grant of Letters of Administration to her estate and caveats were entered at the Probate Registry. Caveats notwithstanding, Mrs Kerr-Robinson obtained a grant on 15 February 2012. Apparently realising its error, the Principal Registry wrote to her requiring the return of the grant. But it was not returned.

Mrs Kerr-Robinson was also born in Jamaica, but moved to the UK in 1998. She is a qualified accountant and claimed to be a niece of the half-blood of the deceased.

Mr Lyons claimed an interest in the estate as Mrs Lyons’ dependant and Mr Kerr claimed an interest in the estate under the intestacy rules as a nephew of the half-blood. They alleged that the Defendant was not related to the deceased by blood at all, and had wrongfully appropriated to herself assets of the deceased’s estate. They sought the revocation of the grant to Mrs Kerr-Robinson and their own appointment as administrators of the estate.

The Claimants sought interim relief to prevent possible dissipation of the estate pending a hearing of the opposing claims in the case and for the appointment of an interim administrator. Their application came before the court and at the hearing Mrs Kerr-Robinson gave certain undertakings to the court rather than suffer an injunction.

The application eventually came before the court in October and November 2012 and on 7 December 2012, judgment was given, revoking the grant of probate on the grounds of error, and ordering the appointment of a local solicitor (to be nominated by the President of the Law Society) as interim administrator of the estate. It was also ordered that Mrs Kerr-Robinson deliver the property or assets of the estate to the interim administrator and not dispose of or deal with the estate assets in the meantime. Finally, she was ordered to pay 70% of the Claimants’ costs of the application, not to be charged to the Estate, and to pay £20,000 on account of those costs within 28 days.

It was then that the real complications set in. At the outset of the litigation, the Defendant had instructed Blueprint Property Lawyers Limited to represent her. As their title suggests, they were Licensed Conveyancers and not authorised to conduct litigation or contentious probate work. Mrs Kerr-Robinson did not pay the £20,000 on account of costs to the Claimants, and the court made an interim charging order against her property to secure the debt. Ultimately this debt was paid, but the Defendant gave evidence that she did not pay it, and assumed that the payment had been made by Blueprint.

The main issue in the case became the recovery of estate assets which had been received by Blueprint having been transferred to them by Mrs Kerr-Robinson some of which had been paid after she had given her undertaking to the court. She had transferred sums totalling £94,765.12 but, unfortunately, by the time the case came on for its final hearing, the Council of Licensed Conveyancers had intervened in the practice of Blueprint and the company had gone into insolvent liquidation. It would seem that Blueprint had billed £97,967.20. plus VAT (there are some pithy remarks in the judgment about the hourly rates charged and time spent) and Mrs Kerr-Robinson defended the case against her by claiming the money was a proper charge on the estate as legal costs and, failing that, that she should be excused liability for any breach of fiduciary duty for having acted honestly and reasonably.

The court found against her on both counts and made an order that she pay the administrator of the estate sums totalling £86,765.12 plus interest.

Mrs Kerr-Robinson has a right of appeal and may yet do so. It came out in the course of the proceedings that she was supported by 8 members of Mrs Lyons extended family and there were other relatives on the side of the Claimants. So the dispute may rumble on but it’s a shame Mrs Lyons never made a will and a scandal that Blueprint took so much of her estate for themselves. The moral of the story is obvious: make a will or risk your estate being soaked up by legal costs.

Philip

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.