Wrangle v Brunt & Anor

An appellate court should rarely interfere with factual findings, particularly findings based on live evidence. It must intervene where the judgment does not disclose a coherent and reasoned evaluation of material evidence. In a fraud or forgery case, the judge should assess the evidence in the round by reference to known and undisputed facts, objective evidence, witness motives, probabilities and expert evidence. Disputed documents cannot automatically provide the platform against which witness evidence is tested. A judge need not address every piece of evidence, but must explain sufficiently why material evidence, including agreed expert evidence, is accepted or rejected. Where the reasoning is inadequate and the truth cannot fairly be determined on appeal, the proper course may be a retrial rather than a decision on the merits.

The defendants appealed an order of Master Teverson dated 15 July 2020 concerning the estate of Dean Ashley James Brunt. The Master had pronounced for the validity of duplicate wills dated 2 March 1999, revoked letters of administration, removed the first defendant as personal representative and appointed a substitute personal representative.

The defendants alleged that the wills were forged or invalidly executed. The case depended heavily on witness credibility, circumstantial evidence and handwriting evidence. They argued that the Master had adopted an inappropriate documentary-first approach, failed to analyse important evidence and failed to explain his rejection of agreed expert evidence. The appeal also concerned permission to rely on fresh evidence, a stay, amendment of the appeal notice and costs.

1. Appeal allowed; order set aside and retrial directed. The appellate court could not fairly determine whether the wills were forged or valid. It therefore declined to decide the substantive probate dispute and ordered a retrial, preferably before a High Court judge or deputy.
2. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with findings of fact, including evaluations of primary facts and witness credibility. That restraint does not prevent intervention where the judgment fails to explain how the judge reached material findings. The reasons need not address every argument or evidential detail, but they must enable the parties and an appellate court to understand why one side succeeded.
3. In a fraud case, the evidence must be assessed in the round. Relevant considerations include known and undisputed facts, objective evidence, documents, witness motives, overall probabilities, inconsistencies and expert evidence. The approach in Re Parsonage (Deceased) [2019] EWHC 2362 was not a universal prescription. A documentary platform is inappropriate where the documents themselves are materially disputed or alleged to be forged.
4. The Master failed adequately to analyse the suspicious circumstances surrounding the wills, the motives of material witnesses, the evidence concerning the one-third share and the Old Barn, the later addition to a diary entry, similar-fact evidence concerning Howard Day, and the strong agreed handwriting evidence. His conclusions based principally on witness impressiveness did not show why contrary evidence was rejected.
5. The fresh evidence was potentially material and apparently credible. Permission to rely on it at the retrial was granted. The stay application fell away. The costs order relating to the first trial was set aside, with costs left to the retrial judge.

• High Court (Chancery Division): Wrangle v Brunt & Anor [2021] EWHC 368 (Ch) allowed the appeal from the order of Master Teverson dated 15 July 2020, set aside the substantive and costs orders, and directed a retrial.