Wright v Waters & Anor

Wright v Waters & Anor

Patricia Wright's conduct, including estrangement and refusal to return £10,000 invested on behalf of her mother, outweighs any factors in her favour; the will's exclusion of her was objectively reasonable. The proprietary estoppel claim fails due to lack of sufficiently clear representations, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment.

Parties
Claimant: Patricia Mary Wright; Defendant: David Ian Waters; Defendant: Susan Maria Waters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Claim and Proprietary Estoppel / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Inheritance Act Claims, Proprietary Estoppel, Testamentary Freedom, Moral Obligation, Maintenance Provision

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Mary Wright

Claimant

David Ian Waters

Defendant

Susan Maria Waters

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Claim and Proprietary Estoppel / Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether Patricia Wright is entitled to provision from the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether Patricia Wright has a valid claim based on proprietary estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

Patricia Wright's conduct, including estrangement and refusal to return £10,000 invested on behalf of her mother, outweighs any factors in her favour; the will's exclusion of her was objectively reasonable. The proprietary estoppel claim fails due to lack of sufficiently clear representations, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed