Dr Christine Gill v Stephen Woodall, Stanley Anthony Lonsdale & the Royal Society for the Prevention and Cruelty To Animals [2008] EWHC 1326 (Ch) (22 May 2008)

Dr Christine Gill v Stephen Woodall, Stanley Anthony Lonsdale & the Royal Society for the Prevention and Cruelty To Animals [2008] EWHC 1326 (Ch) (22 May 2008)

The amendments to pleadings are allowed as they have a real prospect of success and do not cause undue prejudice. Expert medical evidence is relevant and proportionate to the issues of knowledge and approval and undue influence. Directions for sequential exchange of expert evidence and for valuation/accountancy evidence are appropriate. Costs of the application are to be costs in the case.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1326 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Christine Gill; Defendant: Stephen Woodall; Defendant: Stanley Anthony Lonsdale; Defendant: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Probate/inheritance Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Directions
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Knowledge and Approval of Will, Undue Influence, Proprietary Estoppel, Expert Evidence, Amendment of Pleadings
Wills and Probate Equity Knowledge and Approval of Will Undue Influence Proprietary Estoppel Expert Evidence Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Christine Gill

Claimant

Stephen Woodall

Defendant

Stanley Anthony Lonsdale

Defendant

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/inheritance Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend the particulars of claim to plead want of knowledge and approval and undue influence
  2. 2 Whether expert medical and valuation/accountancy evidence should be permitted
  3. 3 Whether the directions sought are proportionate and timely

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to pleadings are allowed as they have a real prospect of success and do not cause undue prejudice. Expert medical evidence is relevant and proportionate to the issues of knowledge and approval and undue influence. Directions for sequential exchange of expert evidence and for valuation/accountancy evidence are appropriate. Costs of the application are to be costs in the case.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Amendments to particulars of claim permitted to plead want of knowledge and approval and undue influence
  • Claimant and defendant permitted to adduce expert medical evidence, with sequential exchange of reports