No: FD22F00062 - [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)

I turn now to set out the factual background to these proceedings in greater detail. In about 1956 the Deceased and her husband, Lawrence Isaacs (“Mr Isaacs”) purchased a four bedroomed property 19, Heathfield Road, Croydon (“the Property”) in order to bring up their family of three children. Their two eldest children, David and Susan are twins, having been born in 1951 (and are now aged 74); Ruth is younger, having been born in 1953 (and is now aged 72).

Susan moved out of the family home in around 1975 and subsequently married, moved to the United States of America and had three children, the eldest of whom, David Ellis (“Mr Ellis”) has given evidence in these proceedings. Susan’s first husband died in a car accident and in 2007 Susan married again to Norman Cohn (“Mr Cohn”). Both Susan and Mr Cohn have a number of health issues and now live in separate residential facilities in the USA.

David moved out of the Property in about 1990. In 2001 he married and had a child. That marriage broke down and was dissolved in 2008. In 2011, following his father’s death David returned to the Property and has lived there ever since.

Mr and Mrs Isaacs had made mirror wills in 2002 leaving their estates to each other, or to their three children jointly if their spouse predeceased them. However, in 2006 they changed their wills to exclude David from benefit. Thus, by her will dated 20 November 2006, the Deceased appointed her husband and the partners in a firm of solicitors to be her executors. She left her entire estate to her husband but, if he did not survive her, then she left it to Ruth and to Susan jointly. The reason for this change is not clear. Susan’s case is that David had always had a very poor relationship with their mother, although this does not explain why David had been included as an equal beneficiary with his sisters in the 2002 will. David’s evidence was that at the time in question, his marriage was breaking down and his mother excluded him as a beneficiary to prevent his wife from making a claim on any inheritance. In his closing submissions he indicated that his mother had wanted for him to get divorced for a while before he had done so and her frustration with his failure to take steps to divorce his wife might have played a part in her decision to exclude him from her will.

Although David’s divorce was finalised in 2008, the Deceased took no steps to reinstate David as a beneficiary under her will at any stage until her death. Although there was no formal diagnosis of dementia in relation to the Deceased, it was common ground between David and Susan that, certainly by 2011, the Deceased’s capacity was significantly impaired.

Mr Isaacs predeceased his wife, dying on 23 February 2010. David moved back into the Property the following year after his tenancy of the council flat he had previously occupied with his wife came to an end. David accepted that the decision that he should move back into the Property was taken primarily by Ruth and that although the Deceased knew that he was there, she did not have capacity to make decisions in this regard. By this stage the Deceased was unwell and both David and Ruth provided her with care. The Deceased died on 22 April 2013.

On her death the Deceased’s estate consisted of the following assets:

Following the death of the Deceased, no immediate action appears to have been taken to administer her estate, save that the firm of solicitors who had been appointed as executors renounced their position. However, I have seen correspondence from 2013 onwards in which Susan sought to reach an agreement with David to enable the estate to be administered. At the time Susan was proposing that she and Ruth should each give up one quarter of their respective one half shares in the estate to David, although she sought to impose terms which would have seen the funds released to David as a monthly income. These proposals did not bear fruit.

Thereafter, very little happened until 2020. David and Ruth continued to live in the Property. Although they met the immediate outgoings for their household, little maintenance appears to have taken place. Susan derived no benefit from the estate but equally took no steps to assert her position as a beneficiary.

Finally, in June 2020, Susan issued proceedings against Ruth for the appointment of a personal representative in the Deceased’s estate. By an order made by Master Pester on 26 March 2021, Mr Green was appointed under section 116 Senior Courts Act 1981 to act as the Deceased’s personal representative. Letters of Administration in the Deceased’s estate were issued to Mr Green on 16 February 2022.

David issued his claim under the Act on 19 August 2022. He was initially represented by solicitors in these proceedings. However, since October 2023 he has been acting as a litigant in person (although he was represented by counsel at a hearing in June 2024). Ruth has been a litigant in person throughout.

These proceedings have proceeded very slowly. An unsuccessful FDR took place on 15 July 2024 and the matter was allocated to me for trial.

Whilst David’s claim has been ongoing, Mr Green has brought two sets of proceedings on behalf of the Deceased’s estate:

David’s first witness statement of 21 July 2022 identified that he was seeking a lump sum of £265,000 as constituting reasonable financial provision from the Deceased’s estate. This was to be made up of an accommodation fund of £225,000, a further £20,000 for furnishings and white goods and £20,000 as a contribution towards future costs of care. In his most recent witness statement of 26 June 2025 he has indicated that he is now seeking an order for one third of the Deceased’s estate. Ruth has supported David’s claim. Mr Green, as independent personal representative, has adopted a neutral attitude to David’s claim. Susan is the only active defendant to the claim, and her position as set out in Mr Poole’s skeleton argument is that the claim should be dismissed.

Whilst these proceedings have been on foot, there has been open correspondence between the parties and their legal advisers with a view to settling the case. In essence the parties have been exploring a solution whereby David and Ruth would raise money on the Property through equity release to enable Susan to receive her share of the estate in cash. Unfortunately, those proposals have foundered on various details and the parties have been unable to resolve this dispute.

At a pre-trial review in May of this year I gave all of the parties permission to file updating evidence of their respective positions (and in the case of Ruth, permission to file a statement as she had not previously done so). This evidence has been received and Mr Green has filed an updating statement setting out the current value of the Deceased’s estate. At trial oral evidence was given by all four parties and by Mr Ellis; Susan and Mr Ellis appearing by video-link from the USA.