Analysis
The claimants were the trustees of the trusts arising under the wills of Violet Hamblen-Thomas (Violet) and Charles Hamben-Thomas (Charles). They had issued a Part 8 claim form seeking the guidance of the court as to the true construction of the will trusts and as to the identification of the beneficiaries, represented by the defendants. Apart from her only son, Edwin Hamblen-Thomas (Edwin), Violet had a life-long friend, Enid Simpson, whose daughter was the first and second defendant (Victoria). Violet, by her will dated 16 December 1968 (Violet’s will), gave Charles a life interest in her freehold property known as Mottisfont House and, subject thereto, directed her trustees to hold her estate upon protective trusts for Edwin during his life and after his death upon trust for all or any of his children who attained the age of 21 years. In the event of Edwin dying without leaving children, the trustees were directed to hold the estate (subject to the payment of a pecuniary legacy) on trust for Enid absolutely but in the event of her predeceasing Violet then on trust for Victoria absolutely. Violet died on 22 June 1973. Charles, by his will dated 6 September 1982 (‘Charles’ will’), gave his property known as 41 Abbey Meads, Romsey upon trust to divide the same equally between (i) the Special Trustees for St Bartholomew’s and St Mark’s Hospitals to establish a fund in the name of Violet for the treatment at St Bartholomew’s Hospital of children under the age of six years and (ii) the Chest Heart and Stroke Association Tavistock House for the benefit of the Romsey Open Gate Stroke Club. Subject thereto, he directed his trustees to hold his net residuary estate upon trust for Edwin during his lifetime and on his death to be divided into three parts between (i) the Romsey Cottage Hospital and the Blandford Hospital, (ii) the Church of the Parish of Mottisfont Hampshire and (iii) St Bartholomew’s Hospital for the benefit of the maternity ward with specific directions as to its application in memory of Violet. Charles died on 5 April 1983. Enid died on 4 September 1998. Edwin died, childless, on 14 August 2014.
Held (as to the true construction of the will trusts):
As to the first issue, in relation to Violet’s will, whether the gift over to Victoria fails, a presumption in favour of early vesting could not apply because the gift to Enid was contingent on Edwin dying without children, whether over or under 21 years. However the rule in Jones v Westcomb was applicable; namely where a testator has provided for the determination of an estate in any of two or more events, and has then given a gift over expressly to take effect in only one of those events, the court will (in the absence of any contrary intent) imply an intention on the part of the testator that the gift over shall take effect not merely in the specified event but on the happening of any of the events which were to determine the previous estate. Having regard to the entirety of Violet’s will and the family circumstances, if Violet had been asked what should happen to the residue if Enid died (in the event which occurred) before Edwin and he had no children, she would have said that it should be left to Victoria. Accordingly, by necessary implication Violet must have intended the gift over to take effect in the event which actually happened; Enid predeceasing Edwin.
As to the remaining issues, in relation to Charles’ will, as to the identification of the beneficiaries, the one-third share of the net residue due to Romsey Cottage Hospital and Blandford Hospital should be paid respectfully to the third and sixth defendants, the one-third share of the net residue due to the Church of the Parish of Mottisfont, Hampshire should be paid to the Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Mottisfont and the one-third share of the residue due to St Bartholomew’s Hospital should be paid to the fourth defendant, notwithstanding the closure of the maternity ward and children’s unit at St Bartholomew’s Hospital. Moreover, the rule in Lassence v Tierney, otherwise known as the rule in Hancock v Watson, applied so as to save the gift without the necessity of applying a cy-pres scheme.
JUDGMENT MASTER SHUMAN: [1] This is a claim by Part 8 claim form issued on 19 July 2017 for guidance from the court on the true construction of the will trusts created by Violet Hamblen-Thomas (Violet) and her husband Charles Hamblen-Thomas (Charles) and on the identification of the beneficiaries. They had one son, Edwin Hamblen-Thomas (Edwin), who …Continue reading "Macintyre & anr v Oliver & ors [2019] WTLR 215"