Jason Smith Waite v Peter Skilton & Ors

A will is construed by identifying the meaning of its words in their documentary and factual context. Where the statutory conditions are met, evidence of the testator’s actual intention may assist construction under section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

Rectification requires proof that the will failed to give effect to the testator’s instructions because of a clerical error or failure to understand those instructions. The court may remove personal representatives where estate administration has become difficult or impossible, having regard to the beneficiaries’ interests, the testator’s wishes, conflicts of interest, and cost.

The claimant sought construction and rectification of his late mother’s will and codicil. The disputes concerned the meaning of “Manor Yard”, land passing under the codicil, land at Waddingham, the husband’s occupation and sale rights in the Manor House, and personal chattels.

A related claim sought removal of the named executors and appointment of Roythornes Trustees Ltd as substitute personal representative. The court also considered alleged dealings by Peter Skilton with estate assets. The central questions were the proper construction of the testamentary documents, whether rectification was justified, and whether administration of the estate had become unworkable.

1. The court construed “Manor Yard” as “Manor House Yard”. The phrase formed part of the definition of the deceased’s house and its grounds. The land north of School Lane belonged to the farming and equine business rather than the grounds of Manor House. The court declared that “all further land at Snitterby” included the identified land and buildings.

2. Under section 24 of the Wills Act 1837, the reference to the deceased’s freehold property at Waddingham spoke as at death. The 57.03 acres known as Waddingham Field therefore passed under clause 5 of the will.

3. The evidence established that the deceased intended to give her husband a life interest in Manor House. Rectification of that provision was refused. However, the power allowing him to require a sale was a clerical error caused by insertion of precedent wording without instructions. The codicil was rectified by deleting that power. The remaining trustees’ powers included those under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.

4. Rectification of clause 4 of the will was refused. The evidence was consistent with the deceased intending the existing gifts of personal chattels to remain effective, with only undisposed property passing into residue.

5. Applying the principles under section 50(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985, the court found that administration had been lamentable and had become difficult or impossible because of the conflict and animosity between the principal beneficiaries. Jason Smith Waite’s conflict of interest made his continued appointment inappropriate. Judith Alloway’s neutral role would be superseded. All named executors and trustees were removed and Roythornes Trustees Ltd was appointed sole personal representative and trustee.

6. Peter Skilton was ordered to account for estate assets taken or disposed of. The court declined to determine definitively which assets were personal chattels or whether the stair-lift expenditure was wrongful.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined two related first-instance claims in the High Court.