As part of the new Labour government’s plan to “Make Work Pay”, the House of Commons are currently in the early stages of passing a new piece of legislation known as the Employment Rights Bill. This legislation aims to provide greater...
Background
The case of Ellis v Ellis & Ors (Re Care, Deceased) [2024] concerned an inheritance dispute over Tregear Farm in Cornwall (‘Tregear’), owned by the late Yeamon Keith Care, (‘Keith’). Keith and his brother, Vivian Care (‘Vivian’), were the children of the late Yeamon and Betty Care, whose family had farmed Tregear for generations. The land and buildings at Tregear were divided between Vivian and Keith. Keith’s share at the date of his death was valued at £655,000 and was subject to an outstanding mortgage. Keith’s Will dated 23 August 2016 (‘the Will’) named Luke Ellis as the principal beneficiary.
Following Keith’s death, Vivian disputed the validity of the Will and contended that Keith died intestate. Vivian argued that he was entitled to part of Tregear under proprietary estoppel, based on family promises that Tregear would remain in the family. The Claimant, Luke, sought to uphold the Will under which he was the residuary beneficiary.
Key issues for the court
A. Was the Will validly executed?
B. Did Keith have capacity to make the Will?
C. Did Keith know and approve the content of the Will?
D. If the Will is found to be valid, is Vivian entitled to a remedy on the grounds of proprietary estoppel?
Court Considerations
Valid Execution
The court held that the Will was signed and witnessed in accordance with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The court rejected arguments that the Will was not witnessed by two witnesses simultaneously. HHJ Berkley found both witnesses were present, and the Will was duly executed.
Capacity
Vivian argued that Keith’s physical ill-health and high morphine dosage was evidence of cognitive decline and a personality disorder. Expert evidence was given by two doctors, one that found Keith had capacity, and one that found he did not.
HHJ Berkley applied Banks v Goodfellow (1870) and Key v Key [2010] and preferred the evidence of the Doctor who found that Keith had capacity. The Judge concluded that Keith did not suffer from a personality disorder and was mentally capable of making rational decisions about his estate. His choice of Luke as the beneficiary was neither illogical or irrational and was based upon his belief that his family had lost interest in him and his animals at Tregear.
Want of Knowledge and Approval
The Court held that the Will was valid as it was prepared by a Solicitor and read over to Keith, highlighting that he understood the content and effect of the Will. There was no evidence of undue influence or misunderstanding.
Proprietary Estoppel
Vivian’s claim that Keith had promised to keep Tregear within the family failed. The Judge found no clear assurances that amounted to a binding promise. Statements allegedly made by Keith were too vague and were not relied upon by Vivian to his detriment. Therefore, no equity arose.
Outcome and Cost Implications
The court upheld the Will as valid, Luke Ellis therefore succeeded as the residuary beneficiary of Keith’s estate. Following the substantive win, the court reconvened in Luke Ellis v Stephen Ellis & Ors [2025] EWHC 2609 (Ch). to determine the costs. Vivian was ordered to pay Luke’s and the executors’ litigation costs. The court highlighted the following:
- Pre-action conduct: Vivian had delayed his own case preparation for nearly two years, despite repeated invitations to clarify his position.
- Mediation: The court accepted that Luke’s initial reluctance to mediate was justified, since Vivian had withheld key evidence. Once disclosure was complete, Luke’s team did agree to mediate.
- Part 36 offer: An offer to settle was made but Vivian’s refusal to engage meant that Luke was entitled to a Part 36 uplift and payment to account of costs.
Significance
This decision in the 2024 Judgment is significant as it highlighted the importance of a validly executed will and the fact that capacity turns on understanding of a will, not lifestyle choices. Furthermore, vague familial expectations will not be grounds for proprietary estoppel.
The costs Judgment further highlights the importance of pre-action protocol. If parties delay, refuse to share information, or ignore pre-action protocols, judges may penalise them heavily. Additionally, a reasonable effort to mediate or settle is important. Those who act reasonably and explore settlement are viewed favourably when costs are decided.
At Glanvilles Solicitors, we can help to prevent and resolve probate disputes. Our specialist team can review the validity of a will, guide you through pre-action steps and support constructive resolution including mediation and negotiated settlements. We can also guide you through litigation. If you have concerns about a will or an estate, or need early advice on avoiding disputes, please contact our Dispute Resolution and Civil Litigation team.
References
Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549
Ellis v Ellis & Ors (Re Care, Deceased) [2024] EWHC 3416 (Ch)
Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408
Luke Ellis v Stephen Ellis & Ors [2025] EWHC 2609 (Ch).
Article written by Thara Elias, Trainee Solicitor Apprentice, and Tom Oliver, Partner Associate, in our Dispute Resolution team.
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute, legal advice, and should not be relied upon as advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article. All content was correct at the time of publishing. Legal advice should always be sought in relation to specific circumstances.