Wrangle v Brunt & Anor

Wrangle v Brunt & Anor

The Master adopted a flawed approach to the assessment of evidence by relying on a fact-finding formula inappropriate for a case where all documents were in dispute, failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting agreed expert evidence, failed to consider relevant witness statements and similar fact evidence, and did not properly evaluate the motives of key witnesses. The cumulative effect was a judgment that could not stand, and a re-trial was the only fair outcome.

Parties
Defendant / Appellant: Marlene Alicia Brunt; Defendant / Appellant: Dale Colin Charles Brunt; Claimant / Respondent: Bob (full name not provided)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Probate / Will Dispute (appeal) / Appeal From Order of Master; Permission to Appeal and Appeal Heard Together; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Master set aside; re-trial ordered
Legal Topics
Forgery of Will, Assessment of Evidence, Appeal on Findings of Fact, Expert Evidence, Costs Orders
Probate Wills and Succession Civil Procedure Forgery of Will Assessment of Evidence Appeal on Findings of Fact Expert Evidence Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marlene Alicia Brunt

Defendant / Appellant

Dale Colin Charles Brunt

Defendant / Appellant

Bob (full name not provided)

Claimant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Probate / Will Dispute (appeal) / Appeal From Order of Master; Permission to Appeal and Appeal Heard Together; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge (Master) erred in law and fact in his approach to assessing evidence and making findings of fact in a will forgery case
  2. 2 Whether the Master failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting expert evidence and for preferring certain witness evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Master failed to consider relevant evidence, including motive and similar fact evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Master adopted a flawed approach to the assessment of evidence by relying on a fact-finding formula inappropriate for a case where all documents were in dispute, failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting agreed expert evidence, failed to consider relevant witness statements and similar fact evidence, and did not properly evaluate the motives of key witnesses. The cumulative effect was a judgment that could not stand, and a re-trial was the only fair outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Master set aside; re-trial ordered

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed; Master's order (including costs order) set aside