Keegan v Keegan & Anor [2025] EWHC 148 (Ch) (28 January 2025)

Keegan v Keegan & Anor [2025] EWHC 148 (Ch) (28 January 2025)

The boundary of Field 84 and the route of the right of way are to be determined as shown on the single joint expert's (Mr Hainsworth's) plan. The estate accounts are properly prepared with deduction for CGT paid by the estate, as the personal representatives were liable for CGT on the sale. Patricia's draft TP1 is approved. Patricia is entitled to injunctions restraining Terence from interfering with the ROW and from impeding marking and fencing of the boundary, but Terence may erect a stock-proof fence strictly in accordance with the determined boundary. Patricia is entitled to her costs, subject to certain reductions for delay.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 148 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant (lead Claim) / Defendant (counterclaim): Patricia Ann Keegan; Defendant (lead Claim) / Claimant (counterclaim): Terence John Keegan; Defendant (lead Claim) / Defendant (counterclaim): Rita Carmel Varga; Defendant (counterclaim): Marie Anna Darley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Chancery Property/probate / Post Trial Applications and Final Orders
Outcome
Applications determined in favour of Patricia Ann Keegan; estate accounts approved; injunctions granted; costs awarded to Patricia subject to reductions.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Right of Way, Interpretation of Wills, Capital Gains Tax Liability in Estates, Estate Administration, Injunctions, Costs Orders
Property Law Trusts and Estates Probate Boundary Disputes Right of Way Interpretation of Wills Capital Gains Tax Liability in Estates Estate Administration +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Ann Keegan

Claimant (lead Claim) / Defendant (counterclaim)

Terence John Keegan

Defendant (lead Claim) / Claimant (counterclaim)

Rita Carmel Varga

Defendant (lead Claim) / Defendant (counterclaim)

Marie Anna Darley

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Chancery Property/probate / Post Trial Applications and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Precise boundary of Field 84 included in gift of Heath Cottage under will
  2. 2 Precise route and rights of vehicular right of way (ROW) over Field 86
  3. 3 Form of transfer (TP1) for Heath Cottage including Field 84 and ROW

Ratio Decidendi

The boundary of Field 84 and the route of the right of way are to be determined as shown on the single joint expert's (Mr Hainsworth's) plan. The estate accounts are properly prepared with deduction for CGT paid by the estate, as the personal representatives were liable for CGT on the sale. Patricia's draft TP1 is approved. Patricia is entitled to injunctions restraining Terence from interfering with the ROW and from impeding marking and fencing of the boundary, but Terence may erect a stock-proof fence strictly in accordance with the determined boundary. Patricia is entitled to her costs, subject to certain reductions for delay.

Court Disposition

Applications determined in favour of Patricia Ann Keegan; estate accounts approved; injunctions granted; costs awarded to Patricia subject to reductions.

Orders

  • Boundary of Field 84 and ROW to be as per Insepes (Mr Hainsworth's) plan.
  • Patricia's draft TP1 approved for transfer of Heath Cottage (including Field 84 and ROW).