Goodchild & Anor v Goodchild [1997] EWCA Civ 1611 (2nd May, 1997)

Goodchild & Anor v Goodchild [1997] EWCA Civ 1611 (2nd May, 1997)

The 1988 wills were not mutual wills binding on Dennis after Joan's death because there was no clear, binding agreement between Dennis and Joan that the survivor would be bound not to alter the disposition. The evidence did not establish a contract or mutual intention required for the doctrine of mutual wills. However, Joan's mistaken belief that the wills were mutually binding imposed a moral obligation on Dennis, justifying an order for reasonable financial provision for Gary under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 1611
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Gary Goodchild; Plaintiff/respondent: Margot Goodchild; Defendant/appellant: Enid Goodchild
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mutual Wills, Constructive Trusts, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Moral Obligation in Family Provision, Secret Trusts, Testamentary Freedom
Wills and Probate Equity and Trusts Family Law Mutual Wills Constructive Trusts Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Moral Obligation in Family Provision Secret Trusts +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Goodchild

Plaintiff/respondent

Margot Goodchild

Plaintiff/respondent

Enid Goodchild

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1988 wills of Dennis and Joan Goodchild were mutual wills binding on Dennis after Joan's death
  2. 2 Whether Gary Goodchild was entitled to benefit under the legal charges or otherwise by agreement or estoppel
  3. 3 Whether the court should make provision for Gary under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Ratio Decidendi

The 1988 wills were not mutual wills binding on Dennis after Joan's death because there was no clear, binding agreement between Dennis and Joan that the survivor would be bound not to alter the disposition. The evidence did not establish a contract or mutual intention required for the doctrine of mutual wills. However, Joan's mistaken belief that the wills were mutually binding imposed a moral obligation on Dennis, justifying an order for reasonable financial provision for Gary under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs, save legal aid taxation
  • Order for payment of £185,000 to trustees to hold on trust to pay income to Enid until her death or 1 March 1996, then to Gary absolutely