Analysis
The Brindle Estate near Chorley belonged to Patience Aspinall, who died in 1985. The Estate passed to her sister Honour Ruth (‘Miss Aspinall’) as her executor and sole beneficiary. In the early 1990s, the Brindle Estate was subject to compulsory purchase for the construction of the M65 motorway over the northern part. By February 1994, the Department of Transfer had entered upon the land for the purpose of commencing construction. Miss Aspinall received interim payments on account of the compensation payable to her arising from construction of the M65, in particular, £46,727 in October 1994, and a second payment of £43,016 on 25 October 1997. The motorway was completed and opened to traffic in 1997.
There was delay in transferring the land and quantifying the claim for compensation, but by July 2007, Miss Aspinall was registered as proprietor of the land other than the M65 land and its accommodation works. The registration of the M65 land proceeded separately, and was subject to various complications, such that it was only registered in March 2015. Until such date, she held an unregistered portion of land on which the M65 was built as executor of her sister’s estate. This was the position when she made her final will dated 5 June 2012.
By clause 8 of the will, Miss Aspinall gave her godson William de Hamel her freehold property at Brindle and surrounding district in the County of Lancaster and known as ‘the Brindle Estate’. The residue passed to Martin, Richard and Robin Aspinall by clause 9 of the will. By the time she made her will, she was owed by the Secretary of State a sum of £90,775 together with interest. Miss Aspinall died on 13 November 2012, by which time the balance had still not been paid.
It was agreed that the compensation payments which had already been paid, and which had not been expended on Brindle Estate fell into residue. The question before the Court was whether the balance was also to fall into residue, or rather, was payable to William de Hamel as specific devisee of the property.
Held:
1) The Court’s concern was to ascertain the meaning of the expressed intention of Miss Aspinall. The words of gift described the freehold land of which Miss Aspinall was the registered beneficial owner and excluded the land taken by the M65 and its accommodation works:
(1) The will spoke from death – thus the court was concerned to see what the words ‘my freehold property at Brindle… known as the Brindle Estate’ meant, on the assumption that those words had been used in a will made immediately before the deceased’s death.
(2) The words did not have a dictionary meaning, namely some special meaning which the deceased attributed to them.
(3) Though the words of gift indicated a specific devise, the subject of the gift was generically described and was capable of enlargement or diminution over the years.
(4) Excluding the land under, or occupied by, the motorway, it was an area of land within the deceased’s unencumbered beneficial ownership, which naturally answered the description of her gift.
(5) ‘My freehold land’ naturally referred to the land which had been effectively assented to her outright, but would not naturally be taken to include land which the deceased continued to hold in a fiduciary capacity only.
(6) ‘My freehold land’ would not naturally be taken to refer to land that had, since 1994, been subject to a statutory process for its acquisition.
(7) Land which had for upwards of 15 years been used as a motorway was not naturally ‘known’ as ‘the Brindle Estate’. If the attention of the reasonable reader of the last will was directed to the tarmac and accommodation works, and they were asked ‘Is that known as part of the Brindle Estate’, the likely answer was ‘No. That is the M65. It has been since 1997’.
(8) Common sense did not suggest a reason why, although the payments on account were treated as the deceased’s personal property, the outstanding payment should be treated differently and notionally as part of her real estate
2) Nothing had happened regarding the Brindle Estate between the date of the deceased’s last will and her death that could directly engage the principles of ademption. By the time of her third will, however, the gift of Brindle Estate had been partially adeemed because an enforceable statutory contract as regards the M65 land had come into being by that date. The residuary beneficiaries had passed the ‘gateway of ademption’ but the case could be decided on the construction of the gift such that the outstanding instalment of compensation fell into residue and did not pass with the specific devise of ‘my freehold property at Brindle…known as the Brindle Estate’.
JUDGMENT NORRIS J: [1] Construction of the M65 began in 1994, and it has been in full use since 1997. But some of the compulsory purchase money has, in 2017, still not been paid to the landowners over whose land it was built. The question in this case is whether the money due goes with …Continue reading "Cronin v De Hamel [2017] EWHC 454 (Ch)"