Maile & Anor v Maile & Ors [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch) (02 October 2025)

Maile & Anor v Maile & Ors [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch) (02 October 2025)

The claimants failed to prove lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, or undue influence regarding the 2016 and 2017 Codicils. The expert evidence and solicitor's attendance notes supported capacity and knowledge. The proprietary estoppel claim failed due to lack of clear assurance, reliance, and net detriment, especially given the benefits received and the partnership agreement. The defendants' counterclaim for possession and mesne profits succeeds as the claimants and their parents remained in occupation without right after the deceased's death.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Steven Maile; Claimant: John Maile; Defendant: Ruth Elizabeth Maile; Defendant: Sheila Mary Kempthorne; Defendant: Gemma Marie Kempthorne; Defendant: Pippa Elizabeth Smith; Defendant: Peter Maile
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Probate and Proprietary Estoppel Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Undue Influence, Proprietary Estoppel, Wills and Codicils, Inheritance, Constructive Trusts
Probate Trusts and Estates Property Law Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Undue Influence Proprietary Estoppel Wills and Codicils +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Maile

Claimant

John Maile

Claimant

Ruth Elizabeth Maile

Defendant

Sheila Mary Kempthorne

Defendant

Gemma Marie Kempthorne

Defendant

Pippa Elizabeth Smith

Defendant

Peter Maile

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate and Proprietary Estoppel Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2016 and 2017 Codicils should be set aside for lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, or undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a valid proprietary estoppel claim to the farm based on alleged representations and detriment
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to possession of the farm and mesne profits/damages for unlawful occupation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, or undue influence regarding the 2016 and 2017 Codicils. The expert evidence and solicitor's attendance notes supported capacity and knowledge. The proprietary estoppel claim failed due to lack of clear assurance, reliance, and net detriment, especially given the benefits received and the partnership agreement. The defendants' counterclaim for possession and mesne profits succeeds as the claimants and their parents remained in occupation without right after the deceased's death.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • The claimants' claims to set aside the 2016 and 2017 Codicils and for proprietary estoppel are dismissed.
  • The defendants' counterclaim for possession of the farm is allowed.