Todd v Parsons & Ors

A clear family assurance that property will remain within a defined family arrangement may found a proprietary estoppel equity where the claimant relies on it to substantial financial and practical detriment. The usual remedy is to satisfy the claimant’s expectation where it is clear, proportionate and fully earned.

Testamentary capacity remains governed by Banks v Goodfellow. Capacity concerns the ability to understand the nature and effect of the will, the general extent of the estate and relevant moral claims; detailed knowledge and accurate memory are unnecessary. Non-compliance with the solicitor’s “golden rule” is evidential, not determinative. Knowledge and approval are assessed holistically. Testamentary undue influence requires proof of coercion or fraud, and is not presumed.

The claimant sought probate in solemn form of his mother’s 2008 will. The third defendant challenged the will for lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraudulent calumny.

The third defendant counterclaimed that the deceased’s property, West Winds, was held for her or the Alexandra Trust by proprietary estoppel or constructive trust. The dispute arose from an informal family arrangement made when the deceased, her sister and the third defendant’s family acquired and redeveloped Lynch Farm.

The court therefore had to determine whether the will was valid and whether the informal arrangement created an enforceable equity in West Winds.

1. Proprietary estoppel. The informal arrangement that the properties at Lynch Farm would not be sold or given outside the family commune was sufficiently clear. The third defendant relied on it by selling her Bristol home, investing money, managing the redevelopment and undertaking substantial physical work. That detriment was causally connected to the assurance and was substantial. A proprietary estoppel equity arose.
2. Remedy. This was a paradigm case for fulfilling the expectation created. The expectation was neither uncertain nor extravagant and was proportionate to the detriment. West Winds was therefore declared held by the deceased’s estate on trust for the third defendant or her nominee.
3. Testamentary capacity. The traditional test in Banks v Goodfellow remained applicable. The deceased understood that she was making a will, understood the general nature and value of her estate, appreciated the relevant moral claims and understood the effect of her dispositions. Capacity is an ability to understand, not a requirement of detailed knowledge or accurate memory. The will was valid despite non-compliance with the “golden rule”, which is a rule of good practice rather than law.
4. Knowledge and approval. The evidence that the will was read through, explained and understood established actual knowledge and approval. The court adopted a holistic assessment of all the evidence.
5. Undue influence and fraudulent calumny. There is no presumption of undue influence in testamentary dispositions. The third defendant failed to prove coercion, fraud or dishonest aspersions causing the will. The independent solicitor’s involvement was relevant and, on the facts, negated any alleged causative effect.
6. The claim for probate in solemn form and the counterclaim succeeded. The court indicated that an independent personal representative should be appointed and directed that the parties be heard on the form of order.