Williams v Seals & Ors

On an application to cancel a caution against first registration, the court should adopt an approach analogous to an application for an interim injunction. It must assess whether the underlying claim to an ownership or proprietary interest is seriously arguable. If it is, the court should consider the adequacy of damages and, where necessary, the balance of convenience. A caution should not remain merely because the claim requires a trial. The court must also consider the practical prejudice to the registered proprietor, including uncompensatable loss, delay, market risk and the parties’ ability to compensate one another.

The claimant, executor and sole beneficiary of the deceased’s estate, applied for cancellation of cautions against first registration affecting farm and other land. The defendants, the deceased’s adult children, intended to challenge the will for lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, and to pursue proprietary estoppel and claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. The cautions prevented an imminent auction sale. The central issues were whether the defendants had a seriously arguable claim to a proprietary interest in the land and whether the cautions should remain pending trial.

1. The application to cancel the cautions against first registration of the farm and Carsington land was granted. The proposed injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the sale was refused because there was no sufficient continuing threat.
2. Following Nugent v Nugent [2013] EWHC 4095 (Ch), the court treated the application as analogous to an interim injunction application. Where the underlying claim is well arguable, the court must consider whether the proprietor and the cautioner can be adequately compensated by damages and, if not, where the balance of convenience lies.
3. The claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 were not merely speculative as claims for financial provision. However, there was no serious prospect that an order transferring land would be made. The defendants’ financial circumstances indicated that maintenance would more appropriately be met by payment from the estate.
4. The intended lack-of-capacity claim was weak on the evidence. The undue-influence claim could not be dismissed as lacking serious merit because it was fact-sensitive and depended on assessment of witnesses and events at trial. It was unnecessary to determine separately the merits of the proprietary-estoppel claims.
5. The defendants could not realistically compensate the estate for loss caused by keeping the cautions in place. The claimant appeared able to compensate them for loss caused by cancellation. The intended sale, the co-owners’ wishes, the risk of delay and the absence of issued proceedings challenging the will or alleging proprietary estoppel supported cancellation.
6. The claimant was awarded her costs from the estate on the indemnity basis, with liberty to apply for an order that the defendants reimburse the estate on the standard basis depending on the outcome of the substantive proceedings. The proceedings were transferred to the Manchester District Registry of the Chancery Division.