Stoney-Andersen v Abbas & Ors [2023] EWHC 2964 (Ch) (24 November 2023)

Stoney-Andersen v Abbas & Ors [2023] EWHC 2964 (Ch) (24 November 2023)

The manuscript amendments to the will were invalid for lack of attestation, so the original will terms applied, entitling the claimant to 66.66% of the residue. The first defendant was properly removed as executor due to conflict and opposition to removal until late in proceedings. The claimant was the successful party but her unreasonable refusal to mediate warranted a 50% reduction in recoverable costs. The first defendant was deprived of indemnity from the estate for his costs due to misconduct in resisting removal.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2964 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Heinie Elizabeth Stoney-Andersen; First Defendant: Ghani Abdul Muttalib Abbas; Second Defendant: Reem Zainy; Third Defendant: Gaynor Iris Brett; Fourth Defendant: Richard Hall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Probate/trusts (part 8 Claim) / Judgment After Disposal Hearing on Costs and Final Orders
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; declaration as to shares in residue granted; first defendant removed as executor; costs apportioned as specified.
Legal Topics
Validity of Will Amendments, Executor Removal, Costs in Probate Litigation, Trustee Indemnity, Dependent Relative Revocation, Manuscript Amendments to Wills
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Validity of Will Amendments Executor Removal Costs in Probate Litigation Trustee Indemnity Dependent Relative Revocation +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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heinie Elizabeth Stoney-Andersen

Claimant

Ghani Abdul Muttalib Abbas

First Defendant

Reem Zainy

Second Defendant

Gaynor Iris Brett

Third Defendant

Richard Hall

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/trusts (part 8 Claim) / Judgment After Disposal Hearing on Costs and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether manuscript amendments to the will were valid and effective
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to 66.66% of the residuary estate
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant should be removed as executor

Ratio Decidendi

The manuscript amendments to the will were invalid for lack of attestation, so the original will terms applied, entitling the claimant to 66.66% of the residue. The first defendant was properly removed as executor due to conflict and opposition to removal until late in proceedings. The claimant was the successful party but her unreasonable refusal to mediate warranted a 50% reduction in recoverable costs. The first defendant was deprived of indemnity from the estate for his costs due to misconduct in resisting removal.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declaration as to shares in residue granted; first defendant removed as executor; costs apportioned as specified.

Orders

  • Declaration that claimant is entitled to 66.66% of the residuary estate; third and fourth defendants each entitled to 16.67%.
  • First defendant removed as executor; Clarke Willmott Trust Corporation Limited to be appointed.