Clarke v Allen & Anor

Clarke v Allen & Anor

The transfer of the property to the daughters was procured by a serious mistake as to Matilda Clarke's rights of occupation, based on incorrect legal advice, and is rescinded. The will did not make reasonable financial provision for Matilda, who is entitled to a capitalised sum to meet her lifelong care needs. Vinette Allen's conduct amounts to financial abuse and justifies a reduction of her share in the estate. Adverse inferences are drawn against Vinette for non-disclosure and dissipation of assets. The estate is to be distributed accordingly, with Matilda receiving the majority share to meet her needs and as a remedy for the defendants' conduct.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Matilda Clarke; Defendant: Ms Vinette Dawn Allen; Defendant: Ms Heather May Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Probate/inheritance and Mistake Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; transfer rescinded for mistake; reasonable financial provision ordered for claimant; adverse inferences drawn against first defendant; shares in residue adjusted accordingly.
Legal Topics
Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Rescission for Mistake, Constructive Trusts, Adverse Inferences, Lasting Power of Attorney, Testamentary Freedom
Succession Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Rescission for Mistake Constructive Trusts Adverse Inferences Lasting Power of Attorney +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Matilda Clarke

Claimant

Ms Vinette Dawn Allen

Defendant

Ms Heather May Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/inheritance and Mistake Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of the property by Lloyd George Clarke to his daughters was procured by mistake and should be rescinded
  2. 2 Whether the will of Lloyd George Clarke made reasonable financial provision for his widow, Matilda Clarke, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  3. 3 Whether adverse inferences should be drawn against the defendants for non-disclosure and non-participation

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer of the property to the daughters was procured by a serious mistake as to Matilda Clarke's rights of occupation, based on incorrect legal advice, and is rescinded. The will did not make reasonable financial provision for Matilda, who is entitled to a capitalised sum to meet her lifelong care needs. Vinette Allen's conduct amounts to financial abuse and justifies a reduction of her share in the estate. Adverse inferences are drawn against Vinette for non-disclosure and dissipation of assets. The estate is to be distributed accordingly, with Matilda receiving the majority share to meet her needs and as a remedy for the defendants' conduct.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; transfer rescinded for mistake; reasonable financial provision ordered for claimant; adverse inferences drawn against first defendant; shares in residue adjusted accordingly.

Orders

  • The transfer of the property at 18 Parkholme Road is rescinded for mistake and held on constructive trust for the estate of Lloyd George Clarke.
  • Matilda Clarke is awarded a capitalised sum of £731,309 for her lifelong nursing care needs and loss of pension credit.