Rawstron & Anor (Executrices of the Estate of Lucian Freud) v Freud

Rawstron & Anor (Executrices of the Estate of Lucian Freud) v Freud

Clause 6 of Lucian Freud's Will, on its natural and ordinary meaning and in the context of the Will as a whole and the relevant factual matrix, is a simple gift of residue to the Claimants absolutely, not subject to a trust. The absence of any reference to a trust in clause 6, the contrast with the 2004 Will, and the use of the Claimants' names rather than their status as trustees, all support this construction. The administrative powers and other provisions do not necessitate implying a trust. The claim therefore succeeds.

Parties
Claimant: Diana Mary Rawstron; Claimant: Rose Pearce; Defendant: Paul McAdam Freud
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Probate/will Construction / Judgment After Part 8 Claim Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed; declaration that Claimants are absolutely entitled to the residuary estate under clause 6 of the Will.
Legal Topics
Construction of Wills, Secret Trusts, Half Secret Trusts, Probate
Succession Law Trusts and Estates Construction of Wills Secret Trusts Half Secret Trusts Probate

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diana Mary Rawstron

Claimant

Rose Pearce

Claimant

Paul McAdam Freud

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/will Construction / Judgment After Part 8 Claim Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 6 of Lucian Freud's Will makes the Claimants absolutely entitled to the residuary estate or whether it creates a trust (including a half secret trust) in their favour.

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 6 of Lucian Freud's Will, on its natural and ordinary meaning and in the context of the Will as a whole and the relevant factual matrix, is a simple gift of residue to the Claimants absolutely, not subject to a trust. The absence of any reference to a trust in clause 6, the contrast with the 2004 Will, and the use of the Claimants' names rather than their status as trustees, all support this construction. The administrative powers and other provisions do not necessitate implying a trust. The claim therefore succeeds.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; declaration that Claimants are absolutely entitled to the residuary estate under clause 6 of the Will.