Analysis
On 18 February 2011, Ray McElroy passed away, survived by his wife of five months, Lynne, and his brother, Paul. Prior to his marriage to Lynne, Ray had made a will pursuant to which Paul was his sole beneficiary. After marrying Lynne, Ray did not execute a further will. On 24 August 2011, Lynne was granted letters of administration in respect of Ray’s estate, having sworn that Ray was domiciled in England and Wales and was intestate. Lynne proceeded to administer Ray’s estate and distribute the assets, including selling a property within the estate in part exchange for a new residence in February 2015. Paul raised a challenge to the grant of letters of administration from 6 July 2018 on the basis that Ray had been domiciled in Scotland and that his previous will was not revoked by his subsequent marriage, ultimately issuing proceedings to revoke the grant on 4 October 2021. Lynne defended such claim partially on the basis that Paul should be prevented by laches, acquiescence and/or issue estoppel from pursuing the matter. A preliminary issue was listed to determine the question of laches.
Held:
- (1) The court would proceed as though the letters of administration must be set aside by right and consider whether any subsequent claim for recovery of the assets in Ray’s estate brought in Scotland would be barred by laches. If the laches defence was made out, the court was bound to dismiss the claim to revoke the grant on the basis that it would serve no useful purpose.
- (2) As Paul had not pleaded any reliance on Scottish law, following Brownlie, the laches defence would be considered on the basis of English law. It was not in dispute that the matters of acquiescence and issue estoppel added nothing to laches.
- (3) Any subsequent recovery claim brought by Paul to recover the assets of Ray’s estate was bound to fail as it would be barred by laches. Paul had initially told Lynne that he did not want anything from Ray’s estate, he had known that he was the sole beneficiary under Ray’s will and there had been a gross and inexcusable delay. Lynne had not caused or materially contributed to such delay, had not been guilty of improper conduct in administering the estate and had suffered significant financial prejudice by the delay because, if Paul had raised his challenge earlier, Lynne would have been able to claim a greater contribution of Ray’s death in service benefits. To allow recovery would also undermine the fairness of Paul’s divorce proceedings, such proceedings having been conducted on the basis that Paul was not a beneficiary of Ray’s estate.
Continue reading "McElroy v McElroy [2023] WTLR 647"