Wright v Waters & Anor [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch) (06 November 2014)

Wright v Waters & Anor [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch) (06 November 2014)

Patricia Wright's claims failed because the evidence did not establish clear and unequivocal promises or detrimental reliance necessary for proprietary estoppel, and her conduct—particularly estrangement and retention of £10,000—outweighed any moral obligation or need under the 1975 Act, making it objectively reasonable for the will to exclude her.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch)
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 Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Proprietary Estoppel, Reasonable Financial Provision, Adult Child Claims, Testamentary Freedom
Succession Law Equity Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Proprietary Estoppel Reasonable Financial Provision Adult Child Claims Testamentary Freedom

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
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 Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of Mary Waters failed to make reasonable financial provision for Patricia Wright under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether Patricia Wright had a valid claim in proprietary estoppel against the estate

Ratio Decidendi

Patricia Wright's claims failed because the evidence did not establish clear and unequivocal promises or detrimental reliance necessary for proprietary estoppel, and her conduct—particularly estrangement and retention of £10,000—outweighed any moral obligation or need under the 1975 Act, making it objectively reasonable for the will to exclude her.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed