Paul John McElroy v Lynne McElroy

Laches may bar a probate claim where the claim serves only to enable a later recovery claim that would itself be barred by laches. The court may determine that issue as a preliminary issue where it has been fully pleaded and tried, the estate has been distributed, and continuation would serve no useful purpose. The question is a value judgment requiring consideration of the length and explanation of the delay, the parties’ conduct, the prejudice caused, and the overall balance of justice. Where foreign law would govern a later claim but has not been pleaded, the court may apply English law by default to the preliminary issue. Probate claims do not enjoy a special immunity from ordinary case-management principles and the overriding objective.

The claimant sought revocation of letters of administration granted to the defendant after the death of the claimant’s brother. He alleged that the deceased had been domiciled in Scotland and that an earlier Scottish-law will remained valid despite a subsequent marriage, making him the sole beneficiary.

The estate had been administered and distributed many years earlier. The parties consented to a trial of the preliminary issue whether the claim was barred by laches, acquiescence or issue estoppel. The court considered whether the claim should be dismissed because its only practical purpose was to enable recovery proceedings in Scotland.

1. Disposition. The claim was dismissed. The court held that the anticipated recovery claim was bound to fail on laches and that allowing the probate claim to continue would serve no useful purpose.
2. Jurisdiction to determine the preliminary issue. Laches ordinarily operates against equitable relief, but the revocation claim was brought solely to facilitate recovery of distributed estate assets. That recovery would be equitable relief. In the circumstances, the court could determine the issue at a preliminary trial and dismiss a claim rendered academic by the failure of its only practical purpose.
3. Applicable law. The claimant had not pleaded Scottish law as governing any later recovery claim. Applying the default rule identified in Brownlie v FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC [2021] UKSC 45, the court applied English law to the preliminary issue, despite recognising that Scottish law might govern subsequent proceedings.
4. Laches assessment. Laches required a value judgment. The relevant considerations included the very substantial and unexplained delay, the claimant’s knowledge of the will and his deliberate decision not to request a copy, his concealment of his investigations, the defendant’s conduct, the distribution and subsequent use of the estate assets, the prejudice to the defendant, and the absence of any sufficient countervailing prejudice to the claimant.
5. The court found that the claimant’s delay was gross and inexcusable. The defendant had not materially caused it. The estate had been fully distributed, and the defendant had arranged her life and housing around the inheritance. The claimant had also failed to disclose the potential inheritance in his divorce proceedings, creating a further risk of satellite litigation.
6. The court assumed, without deciding, that the deceased had been domiciled in Scotland and that the will remained valid. The cogency of evidence concerning domicile was therefore not given material weight in deciding laches.