Beasant v Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind & Ors [2022] EWHC 1319 (Ch) (30 May 2022)

Beasant v Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind & Ors [2022] EWHC 1319 (Ch) (30 May 2022)

Clause 4 of the will is not ambiguous on its face or in light of surrounding circumstances; the definition of Nil-Rate Sum is clear and unambiguous; extrinsic evidence of intention is inadmissible under section 21; the Chief Master's analysis and decision were correct.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1319 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/first Defendant: John Wayland Beasant; Respondent/claimant: Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind (Sightsavers International); Second Defendant: Benjamin Huw Davies; Defendant for the Purposes of Costs: Alletsons Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Property Trusts and Probate List (ch D) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Will Construction, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence, Inheritance Tax, Section 21 Administration of Justice Act 1982
Probate Trusts Charity Law Will Construction Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence Inheritance Tax Section 21 Administration of Justice Act 1982

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Wayland Beasant

Appellant/first Defendant

Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind (Sightsavers International)

Respondent/claimant

Benjamin Huw Davies

Second Defendant

Alletsons Limited

Defendant for the Purposes of Costs

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Property Trusts and Probate List (ch D) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is clause 4 of the will ambiguous on its face or in light of surrounding circumstances under section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982?
  2. 2 Should extrinsic evidence of the testatrix's intention be admitted to construe the will?

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 4 of the will is not ambiguous on its face or in light of surrounding circumstances; the definition of Nil-Rate Sum is clear and unambiguous; extrinsic evidence of intention is inadmissible under section 21; the Chief Master's analysis and decision were correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Chief Master's orders affirmed
  • No separate consideration of costs appeal