Wrangle v Brunt & Anor [2021] EWHC 368 (Ch) (28 January 2021)

Wrangle v Brunt & Anor [2021] EWHC 368 (Ch) (28 January 2021)

The Master's judgment was flawed because he adopted an inappropriate approach to the assessment of evidence in a case where all contemporaneous documents were disputed, failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting agreed expert evidence and for preferring certain witness testimony, and did not sufficiently address relevant evidence and factual issues. The deficiencies in the judgment made it impossible for the parties and the appellate court to discern the basis for the decision. The only appropriate course was to allow the appeal and order a re-trial.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 368 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Winston Neville Wrangle; First Defendant / Appellant: Marlene Alicia Brunt; Second Defendant / Appellant: Dale Colin Charles Brunt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Probate Appeal / High Court Appeal From Order of Master; Permission to Appeal and Appeal Heard Together
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Master set aside; re-trial ordered
Legal Topics
Validity of Wills, Forgery, Assessment of Evidence, Appeals, Costs Orders
Probate Wills and Estates Civil Procedure Validity of Wills Forgery Assessment of Evidence Appeals 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winston Neville Wrangle

Claimant / Respondent

Marlene Alicia Brunt

First Defendant / Appellant

Dale Colin Charles Brunt

Second Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Probate Appeal / High Court Appeal From Order of Master; Permission to Appeal and Appeal Heard Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in law in his approach to assessing evidence and making findings of fact regarding the validity of the will
  2. 2 Whether the Master failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting expert evidence and for preferring certain witness testimony
  3. 3 Whether the Master failed to consider relevant evidence, including motive and similar fact evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Master's judgment was flawed because he adopted an inappropriate approach to the assessment of evidence in a case where all contemporaneous documents were disputed, failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting agreed expert evidence and for preferring certain witness testimony, and did not sufficiently address relevant evidence and factual issues. The deficiencies in the judgment made it impossible for the parties and the appellate court to discern the basis for the decision. The only appropriate course was to allow the appeal and order a re-trial.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed