Heinie Elizabeth Stoney-Andersen v Ghani Abdul Muttalib Abbas & Ors

Heinie Elizabeth Stoney-Andersen v Ghani Abdul Muttalib Abbas & Ors

The manuscript amendments to the will were invalid for lack of attestation by witnesses, so the original will terms applied, entitling the claimant to 66.66% of the residue. The first defendant was removed as executor due to conflict and loss of confidence. The claimant was the successful party but failed to engage with mediation/ADR, so was awarded only 50% of her costs, with the first defendant liable for 35% and the second and third defendants jointly and severally liable for 50%. The first defendant was deprived of indemnity from the estate for his costs due to his opposition to removal.

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
11 October 2024
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; removal of executor ordered; costs apportioned as per judgment.
Legal Topics
Validity of Will Amendments, Removal of Executor, Costs in Estate Litigation, Executor Indemnity, Mediation/adr in Litigation
Probate Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Validity of Will Amendments Removal of Executor Costs in Estate Litigation Executor Indemnity Mediation/adr in Litigation

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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 by witnesses, so the original will terms applied, entitling the claimant to 66.66% of the residue. The first defendant was removed as executor due to conflict and loss of confidence. The claimant was the successful party but failed to engage with mediation/ADR, so was awarded only 50% of her costs, with the first defendant liable for 35% and the second and third defendants jointly and severally liable for 50%. The first defendant was deprived of indemnity from the estate for his costs due to his opposition to removal.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declaration as to shares in residue granted; removal of executor ordered; costs apportioned as per judgment.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant is entitled to 66.66% of the residuary estate; third and fourth defendants each entitled to 16.67%.
  • Order removing the first defendant as executor and appointing Clarke Willmott Trust Corporation Ltd.