PT-2022-000261 - [2025] EWHC 2060 (Ch)

Sheila was born on 11 November 1928, and died on 10th September 2016 aged 87. She was unmarried and had no children, nor, it would seem, close family. During the relevant period, she suffered from a variety of medical conditions including chronic severe bowel issues, hiatus hernia, arthritis, and cervical spondylitis. She also had a pathological fear of being on her own (resulting in panic attacks) and agoraphobia. She was very demanding, and frequently changed her GP due to complaints. She regularly called 999 in the middle of the night, with panic attacks about her constipation, and would be admitted to hospital where she would be given treatment for this.

Ms Karim was born in 1971, and aged 54 at the date of the trial. In the summer of 1998, Ms Karim saw and responded to an advertisement in a shop window offering free accommodation in exchange for company. The advertisement was placed by Sheila, who was living alone. However, Ms Karim only stayed one night, because the house was very run down.

In June 2006, Ms Karim saw another advertisement offering a free room in a house in exchange for company. By coincidence, it had been placed by Sheila. She moved in with her 3 children, then aged 3 months, 4 years and 7 years. (She was separated from her husband.)

Sheila was then 78. She made it clear at the outset that she wanted Ms Karim to provide her with 24 hour care, and that was the initial arrangement. They became very good friends and dependent on each other. Sheila’s hospital notes for 22 November 2013 describe her as living at home with a friend.

In 2007, Ms Karim inherited some money from her mother. She loaned £50,000 to Sheila to improve her quality of life, as she (Sheila) was cash poor.

In 2008, Sheila began paying Ms Karim £60 per week for housekeeping. Around this time, Ms Karim’s divorce was finalised. When Donna Payne first moved into the house in about 2008, Sheila told her that Ms Karim was not very nice to her (Sheila). However, Ms Payne soon discovered that she had been misled, and that Ms Karim was kind and very caring towards Sheila. When Sheila was having a bad day, she could be unpleasant and abrupt with people and scream.

Between 2007 and 2012 Ms Karim spent further monies improving the property: re-wiring, installing central heating, plastering and decorating, updating the kitchen and bathroom, and flooring.

In January 2011, Ms Karim and Sheila formalised their arrangements. An agreement (“the 2011 agreement”) was drawn up by Sheila’s solicitors, Romaine Coleman and signed by them on 28 January 2011. Denise McCarney witnessed it. She had known Sheila since 1997 when she (Ms McCarney) and her partner became Sheila’s neighbours. They asked for a meeting with Sheila to reassure themselves that Sheila had indeed agreed to all its contents. They spoke to her for over an hour, during which time they questioned her on all its points. Sheila was able to tell them exactly what was in the agreement and that she (Ms McCarney) should happily sign it. Ms McCarney believed that Sheila knew what she was doing, and for that reason, was happy to witness Sheila signing the document.

In addition, the evidence includes the first page of a letter dated 13 January 2011 from Romaine Coleman, explaining the effect of the 2011 agreement. This letter shows:

The 2011 agreement:

The 2011 agreement is also a service agreement. In return for £100 per week, Ms Karim agreed to extensive caring and housekeeping responsibilities between 6.30am and 11pm, including always to sleep on the same floor as her, and making sure that she always had a suitable person to deal with her agoraphobia. Ms Karim also agreed that if Sheila ran out of money, she would continue her duties without payment.

On the same date, Sheila executed a form CH1 granting a legal charge over the property securing the sum of £85,000 and any other liabilities under the 2011 agreement on the property. This was registered at HM Land Registry on 23 February 2011.

Around this time, a social worker (identified only as Manjula) alleged that Ms Karim was exploiting Sheila. On 29 December 2011, Walthamstow Social Services wrote to Romaine Coleman:

“We have received numerous allegations of financial exploitation of Miss Carter by her live in carer, Shanaz Karim, which we have investigated under the Safeguarding procedures. These allegations have been largely unsubstantiated and therefore not progressed any further.”

In 2012, Ms Karim sold her former home, 35 Stainforth Road, Ilford, IG2 7EJ (which she had bought under the right to buy scheme). The net proceeds of sale were about £120,000.

Sheila told Ms West on many occasions that intended to leave her house to Ms Karim in recognition of Ms Karim’s care and dedication. On 23 November 2012, Sheila executed the 2012 will. Romaine Coleman prepared and arranged the execution of the will which was witnessed by Mr Timms and a receptionist at Romaine Coleman. After a gift of her jewellery to Ms West, Sheila left her entire estate to Ms Karim.

On 5 December 2012, Sheila again phoned Mr Timms at Romaine Coleman. She told him she wanted to appoint Ms Karim as her attorney so that she could deal with her financial affairs. She explained to him that her doctor was reluctant to provide a certificate that she was not pressurised because he feared she was being unduly influenced.

In October 2013, Sheila left a telephone message for Mr Timms telling him that she had agreed to Ms Karim carrying out some works to her kitchen and building a loft extension. Mr Timms responded on 10 October 2013 asking her not to telephone the firm to tell them about matters in which they were not involved (and to chase her for payment of their bill for preparation of the 2012 will).

Ms Karim’s evidence is that she spent £65,000 on a loft conversion at the property, and about £15,000 on doing up the kitchen. She did so in the expectation that she would be entitled to the property on Sheila’s death.

Sheila first met Mr Quinn on 24 November 2013, during a short stay in Whipps Cross University Hospital (“the hospital”), where Mr Quinn was visiting his daughter. Sheila told Ms Karim that Mr Quinn had accused Ms Karim of poisoning her in order to get the house and taking money from her. That day, Ms Karim reported these accusations to the hospital. In the hospital notes for that visit, Mr Quinn is described as Sheila’s “friend” even though he had only met her that day. He told the hospital that when Sheila asked Ms Karim for help, she did not always tend to her.

Sheila was re-admitted a few days later. During her second stay, Ms Karim saw Mr Quinn rummaging through Sheila’s bags, and he told Ms Karim he wanted the keys to the house. Ms Karim then told Sheila that she could not take responsibility for her if she was allowing strangers (Mr Quinn) into the house and Sheila was taken into the care of social services. Over the next two days (26 and 27 November 2013), Mr Quinn, his wife or his daughter phoned Ms Karim repeatedly to ask for the keys to the house, which she refused to give him. On one of these calls, Ms Karim asked for his ID and his connection with Sheila, to which he responded “Don’t be suspicious of me or I will be your worst enemy”.

Once Sheila returned home, Mr Quinn began visiting her there. He gave her bed baths. This was unnecessary because she had professional carers who visited 4 times a day to help her with her personal hygiene, including carrying out this task. It shows an unusual and inappropriate level of physical intimacy between Mr Quinn and Sheila.

On 24 December 2013, Ms Karim reported to the police that Mr Quinn had been telling Sheila that he cared for her, and that Ms Karim was not doing a good job. She also said that Mr Quinn had been suggesting to Sheila that she change her will as Ms Karim did not deserve to take under it. By 7 January 2014, Sheila had returned to live at the property, where she was bedbound. Her phobia of being alone had worsened to the point where she was so frightened that she called the police or ambulance if Ms Karim left the house.

In January 2014, Ms Karim reported to the police that Mr Quinn had brought a “mystical healer” to the house, who said she was trying to get the evil sprits from Sheila. Ms Karim believed that Mr Quinn was trying to turn Sheila against her. At this point, the relationship broke down and Ms Karim left the house. Sheila was moved into temporary care accommodation by Social Services. The last payment of wages to Ms Karim from Sheila’s bank account is £150 on 22 January 2014.

By May 2014, Sheila had moved to a care home, George Mason Lodge. Initially, Ms Karim visited her in the care home, but was told by the staff that Mr Quinn had told them that she was not allowed to visit. Similarly, Sheila’s friends, including her close friends, Ms West and Maureen (whose last name was not in evidence) were prevented from visiting Sheila. Ms West found this alarming, as Sheila had always valued their friendship and contact.

Sheila told Ms West that she felt emotionally and practically unsupported after Mr Quinn took control; and Ms West’s evidence is that he manipulated Sheila at a vulnerable time.

On 5 June 2014, Mr Quinn contacted Ian Cranefield of Richard Nelson LLP, solicitors. His attendance note records:

“Sheila is someone with full capacity but certain personality issues which have led her in the past to be very vulnerable

…

John Quinn told me that he and his wife would be happy to have her [Sheila], but some incident or other occurred with a lady called Jaqueline Shepherd in 2011, who died in A & E after residing at their house with them. The suggestion I was given is that John Quinn has been cleared of any contribution to her death but has not been “officially exonerated’'. That is dependent on a coroner’s report which hasn’t yet been released.

This suspicious death somehow means that she cannot go and stay with him and his wife either.”

Mr Cranefield then phoned Sheila at the care home. That attendance note includes:

“She said that the relationship soured when Shanaz tried to isolate her from other people.

She was very enthusiastic about John Quinn who had changed her life.

She said that Shanaz had "asked me for John's ID" at some point and had asked her to choose between them. It seems to have caused her great distress.

…

It doesn’t sound as if Sheila has cut off all contact with Shanaz and I suspect she changes her opinions about her.

…

She certainly has capacity.

…

I suspect she is someone who is very easily influenced by other people around her with strong personalities.”

Finally, Mr Cranefield spoke to Sheila’s social worker, John White:

“He felt that the agreement was more in Sheila's favour than Shanaz and that Sheila had demanded impossible levels of care, which were bound to fail.

From a social worker's point of view, the legal agreement drawn up by the solicitors was never going to work. He will send me a copy.

I asked him about the safeguarding investigations and he indicated that different allegations had been made by and about Shanaz and Sheila and the whole picture was confusing.

He doesn’t deny that Shanaz may have been “manipulative” but he feels that Sheila has been "more manipulative”.

He says she has given different opinions to the local authority and to him and it’s a real headache. Because she has capacity she is the "decision maker” but her decisions keep changing.

He says she demands high levels of company and support beyond what her needs are. He described her as “taking to her bed" two and a half years ago and “playing the victim”. He is not convinced by her complaints of agoraphobia.

She insists on keeping the door of her bedroom open and fears falling out of bed. She insists on padded cot sides to the bed and he thinks that she thinks like a baby. Her care needs cannot be managed in this way.

He applauded John Quinn for getting her on her feet.”

On 18 June 2014, Richard Nelson LLP, wrote to Romain Coleman on behalf of Sheila alleging that they had been professionally negligent in advising Sheila to enter into the 2011 agreement. They referred to Sheila as a “vulnerable elderly lady”. They also wrote to Ms Karim asserting that she had no entitlement to live in the property; followed by a letter before claim in respect of a possession claim. On 19 February 2015, Richard Nelson wrote to say that time was of the essence, because Sheila required her capital out of the house.

On 15 September 2014, Mr Cranefield met Sheila (partly on her own and partly in the presence of Mr Quinn) to discuss whether wished to bring possession proceedings to recover the property. He then prepared a witness statement which Sheila dated “15^th 2014”. The statement set out, in broad summary, complaints and allegations of financial exploitation and neglect by Ms Karim. Many of these allegations are not consistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence or with the evidence of Ms Karim’s witnesses:

It is clear from Richard Nelson’s letter of 11 June 2015 that Mr Quinn (who is described by them as Sheila’s “companion”) arranged for Sheila to consult them, and accompanied her to the consultations. I note that the solicitor records that he saw no evidence of Sheila being persuaded to bring possession proceedings by Mr Quinn, and that his role was a supportive one. For reasons that are unclear, no possession claim was brought.

Ms Payne states that Mr Quinn visited Sheila daily and that Sheila told her that she was going to marry Mr Quinn, they were in love and she had put him in her will. When she (Ms Payne) asked Mr Quinn if he felt the same way, he immediately said “no, I’m a married man”. Sheila also told Ms Payne that Mr Quin did love her, but hadn’t told his wife. Eventually, Ms Payne was told by the care home (not by Sheila herself) that Sheila did not want any visitors anymore, including her long-time friends.

Sheila’s bank statements show that from July 2014, substantial cash withdrawals begin to be made from her bank account, in hundreds and sometimes one or 2 thousand pounds. The total sum withdrawn in the period July 2014 to September 2016 (when Sheila died) is £27,252. It is difficult to see how or why Sheila would have needed this money for her own expenses when she was living in a care home and bedbound. Since Mr Quinn was the only person in regular contact with Sheila during this period, I find that he took her to the bank (or cashpoint) to withdraw these sums. By way of example, on 5 August 2014, £5,000 in cash was withdrawn from Sheila’s account. Her hospital notes for 8 August 2014 record that “several days ago” she went for a bus ride (on which she must have been accompanied by Mr Quinn); and I find that he was with her when she withdrew that sum.

Sheila’s medical (hospital and GP) notes evidence her relationship with Mr Quinn and how he presented himself to her medical practitioners. In notes made on 14 January 2014, and of a clinic appointment on 30 September 2014, he is described as her son. In other notes her is referred to as her “friend “or as her friend, and in her final months as her next of kin.

Her GP’s records record on 9 April 2015:

“Telephone encounter -*****, at ********** Lodge - says that her "*****" ***** has brought them in some nurofen for her. Not prescribed from us, on lots of analgesics already. Adv not to use given Gl complications.

***** is not a ***** of Sheila. He visits her most days, ***** and ***** at home concerned about his intentions, and has been raised already as a safe guarding issue.

***** has spoken to surgery and told us that he is *****. I will get popup on notes that we are not to discuss Sheila's records with him and any ***** he has should go through the ***** at ***** ***** who will then contact us.”

These notes must, I find, refer to Mr Quinn.

On 29 January 2016, the GP notes record a conversation with the manager of Sheila’s care home:

“she refuses to eat when they try to feed her and waiting for Jonh to feed her….

Informed that Jonh wanted to take her power of Attorney….

home also not happy with Jonh ***** to her. But she has the capacity and this is what she wants.”

Sheila’s hospital Emergency Department Discharge Summary dated 3 February 2016 in respect of her admission on 2 February 2016 records:

“Patient now says that she is not being fed at home and that want to kill her by sending her back there. Capacity intact. Nursing team here confirm that she has been saying the same for years.

I belive there has been an element of coersion from frien John Quinn as patient was not of the same opinion 30mins ago.”

Later, the notes record Mr Quinn kissing Sheila in her hospital cubicle on that day.