Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Bad behaviour scuppers daughter’s inheritance claim

1st December, 2014

The recently reported case of Wright v Waters provides an example of how bad behaviour can impact claims brought by disappointed beneficiaries.

The last will of Mary Waters made no provision for her daughter Patricia Wright or for her children and grandchildren. Instead, almost the entire estate worth £138,000 was left to the son of Mary Waters, David Waters and his wife and children.

Patricia Wright brought two claims against her late mother’s estate. The first was a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. In support of the claim, Patricia Wright highlighted that she has helped in her mother’s shop, was in serious ill health and was in financial difficulty. The second claim was based on proprietary estoppel. Patricia Wright’s argument was that her parents (who were shopkeepers) had promised her an inheritance and that as a result of this promise she had provided them with unpaid labour as a young woman.

In rejecting the first claim, the judge was heavily swayed by a letter that Patricia Wright had written to her mother formally disowning her and wishing her dead. This had been followed by nine years of refusing to communicate. In addition Mary Waters had passed £10,000 to her daughter to invest on her behalf which Patricia Wright had later refused to return, insisting that it had been a gift.

In rejecting the second claim, the judge made it clear that there was insufficient evidence of clear representations supposedly made by Patricia Wright’s parents that she would receive an inheritance that Patricia Wright could have been expected to have relied upon.

The judge concluded that Patricia Wright’s behaviour outweighed all of the factors in her favour and that looking at the situation objectively, it had been reasonable for Mary Waters to make a will that excluded her daughter.

For more information on this please contact James Wallace on 01244 405588 or email [email protected]

You might also be interested in...

Legal expert’s data protection workshops pull in the crowds

22nd May, 2018

With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into force in May, businesses across Shropshire have been flocking to hear more about the new laws Paul Bennett, a partner at law firm Aaron & Partners LLP, has been delivering seminars in partnership with the Shropshire Chamber of Commerce An employment solicitor from Shrewsbury is urging businesses across the... Read More »

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP

15th May, 2018

Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »

When you should NOT pay the bailiff…

24th April, 2018

Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »

Contact Us