PT-2018-000874 - [2025] EWHC 2796 (Ch)

Fecha: 29-Oct-2025

PART A - INTRODUCTION

PART A - INTRODUCTION

Overview of the dispute and the key individuals involved

This is a dispute about the estate of the deceased, Richard Norman Scott (Richard), who died on 3 June 2018 and promises that he is said to have made to one of his children, Adam Clive Scott (Adam).

The dispute sadly involves a number of members of the same extended family. In those circumstances, I will tend to refer to family members, and people close to the family, by their first names as that is the way they referred to each other in their witness statements, oral evidence and contemporaneous documents. I adopt this approach only in the interests of readability and intend no disrespect or lack of formality in doing so.

The individuals central to the dispute can best be described by reference to the three enduring romantic relationships of Richard’s life. Richard’s first marriage was to Janet Bradshaw (Janet), who sadly died in a car accident in 1976. Richard and Janet had six children, of whom Adam was the second oldest. After Janet’s death, Richard had a relationship with Valerie Haberfield (Valerie) although they never married or had children. In August 1993, Richard met Jennifer Redgrave (Jennifer), who was many years his junior. Richard and Jennifer had seven children together including the Fifth and Sixth Defendants (Gordon and William respectively) and were married in April 2016, just over two years before Richard’s death. Richard also had other children from more casual relationships over the years bringing to at least 19 the total number of children that he fathered.

There are three distinct strands to the dispute that I must resolve in this judgment:

the Proprietary Estoppel Claim by which Adam asserts that he is entitled to an equitable remedy arising out of promises that Richard made to him during his lifetime;

ii)

the Probate Claim, by which Adam asks the court to determine that wills that Richard made in September and December 2016 (the Disputed Wills) were invalid because Richard lacked testamentary capacity and/or that those wills had not received Richard’s knowledge and approval;

iii)

the Sham Tenancies Claim, by which Jennifer asks the court to declare that certain tenancies that Richard granted to Adam during his lifetime were shams and thus of no legal effect.

Before the trial commenced, there were other matters for determination:

Adam sought injunctions restraining Jennifer, Gordon and William from trespassing on his land or performing acts of harassment. That claim was compromised by Jennifer, Gordon and William giving undertakings to the court. I was not invited in closing submissions to make any findings as to the extent of any harassment or trespass that had taken place historically.

ii)

Adam sought orders that Jennifer should not be permitted to act as executor to the extent that either of the Disputed Wills was found to be valid. The parties agreed that any question as to Jennifer’s ongoing suitability as executor or otherwise was best deferred until after judgment since by then the extent of the interests of the various parties in Richard’s estate would have been clarified.

iii)

Adam also made an application under s117 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 seeking the appointment of an independent professional to administer Richard’s estate pending judgment. After hearing brief oral argument, I made an interim order and gave oral reasons, adjourning the substantive application until after judgment.

The following table summarises key individuals who will be referred to throughout this judgment.

Name	Referred to in judgment as	Description
Richard Norman Scott	Richard	The deceased
Adam Clive Scott	Adam	Second child of Richard and Janet. Claimant
Richard Harry Scott	Richard Harry	Richard’s eldest child (with Janet). Witness for Adam
Rachael Shorthose	Rachael	Child of Richard and Janet. Witness for Adam
Rebecca Elizabeth Horley	Rebecca	Child of Richard and Janet. Fourth Defendant. Witness for Adam
Giles Scott	Giles	Child of Richard and Janet. Witness for Adam
Sarah Scott	Sarah	Child of Richard and Janet. Seventh Defendant. Witness for Adam
Jennifer Scott	Jennifer	Richard’s wife at his death. Second Defendant
Gordon Redgrave Scott	Gordon	Richard’s eldest child (with Jennifer). Fifth Defendant
William Redgrave Scott	William	Child of Richard (with Jennifer). Sixth Defendant
Valerie Haberfield	Valerie	Richard’s former partner and long-term friend. Witness for Adam
Melanie Seymour	Melanie	Adam’s former wife. Witness for Adam
Kate Sutherland	Mrs Sutherland	Paralegal who drew up the Disputed Wills. Witness for Jennifer
Louise Eccleston	Ms Eccleston	Solicitor and partner at Storrar Cowdry. Acted for Richard in connection with proceedings in Court of Protection
Professor Alistair Burns	Professor Burns	Consultant psychiatrist. Jennifer’s expert witness on mental capacity
Dr Hugh Series	Dr Series	Consultant psychiatrist. Adam’s expert witness on mental capacity
Rostons	Rostons	Single joint expert on valuation

The third Defendant is not a family member and is party to this litigation in her capacity as executor of the Disputed Wills.