BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> May & Ors v Middlemas & Anor [2024] EWHC 2761 (Ch) (04 September 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2761.html Cite as: [2024] EWHC 2761 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
PROPERTY, TRUST & PROBATE LIST (ChD)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JESSE FRODSHAM
Birmingham West Midlands, B4 6DS |
||
B e f o r e :
sitting as a Judge of the High Court
____________________
(1) MRS MARY MAY (2) MR EDMUND WILLIAM KNOWLES (3) MR ARTHUR KNOWLES (4) MR JOHN KNOWLES (5) MRS SANDRA ELIZABETH MAKIN (6) MRS ELIZABETH MOLYNEUX |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
(1) MR TIMOTHY STUART MIDDLEMAS (2) MR JEFFREY KNOWLES |
Defendants |
____________________
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The First Defendant appeared in person for the handing down of this judgment on the 2nd day of the trial, but he did not attend and was not represented on the 1st day of the trial
The Second Defendant was not in attendance and was not represented
Hearing dates: 3rd and 4th September 2024
____________________
(APPROVED TRANSCRIPT )
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGE RICHARD WILLIAMS:
Introduction and background
Standard of proof
"[117.] In general, it is legitimate and conventional, and a fair starting point, that fraud and dishonesty are inherently improbable, such that cogent evidence is required for their proof. But that is because, other things being equal, people do not usually act dishonestly, and it can be no more than a starting point. Ultimately, the only question is whether it has been proved that the occurrence of the fact in issue, in this case, dishonesty….., was more probable then not."
The evidence
a. the first claimant, Mrs Mary May;
b. the second claimant, Mr Edmund William Knowles;
c. the third claimant, Mr Arthur Knowles;
d. the first claimant's husband, Mr Robert May;
e. the Deceased's long-time neighbour, Mr Charles Howard; and
f. Mr David Charles Uden, who is the nephew of the Deceased's late partner, Mr Neil Churchman, who died on 28 April 2020.
I found all these witnesses of fact to be honest witnesses, doing their best to assist the court.
Analysis
a. Firstly, at the time the Disputed Will was made the Deceased was, and had been since about 2005, living in the flat with his partner, Mr Churchman. It is hard to believe that the Deceased would not have wanted to make some provision for his long-term partner, who was then frail and dependent upon the Deceased for housing. It makes even less sense that Mr Churchman purportedly was asked to witness the Disputed Will.
b. Secondly, as explained in the claimants' witness statements, although the Deceased was brought up in St Helens, before moving to London in his late teens, he remained in contact and on good terms with his family.
c. Thirdly, it is very surprising that bearing in mind the size of the estate, the Deceased would have wanted to leave everything to Mr Middlemas, who he had known for some four years, to the total exclusion of Mr Churchman and the Deceased's own family.
a. Firstly, following the death of his previous partner in 2003, the Deceased developed an alcohol problem, after which time he stopped visiting his family in St Helens. Whilst he kept in touch with his family by telephone and text messages, by the time of the Disputed Will the Deceased had not seen his family for many years.
b. Secondly, it is clear from the medical records that the relationship between the Deceased and Mr Churchman was volatile and safeguarding concerns had been raised that Mr Churchman was in an abusive relationship.
c. Thirdly, Mr Howard described Mr Middlemas as having become a frequent visitor to the Deceased's flat.
The expert evidence
"All signatures and handwriting appearing on the Will have been appended in black non ballpoint pen ink. However, on the reserve of page 1, there is, what appears to be black ballpoint pen ink, which appears on the embossed lines of the signatures appended to the front of the page. Due to technical features observed, this appears to be the result of offsetting i.e. a transference of ink caused by the paper of page 1 resting on writings in wet ballpoint pen ink, on an underlying page, at the time when the signatures on page 1 were written. In this process, the writing action of the signatures pushes the reverse side of the paper into contact with the wet ballpoint pen writing beneath, allowing a transfer of ink onto the reverse of the paper.
Due to the nature of the apparent offsetting, with the respect to the signatures in the names of Jason Frodsham and Neil Churchman on the Will, I consider that this could be due to the signatures being tracings of signatures in each of their names, which were made in ballpoint pen ink on an underlying page."
a. the paper used on page 2 is different from page 1;
b. the printer ink has adhered in a different way, inconsistent with both pages being created in a single print run;
c. there are horizonal folds on page 1, absent from page 2; and
d. the typed content and formatting of the Disputed Will are substantially different between the two pages.
The timings of the production of the Disputed Will
a. page 1 was not disclosed until some three months after the Deceased had died, and despite the fact that Mr Middlemas (who said he signed the Disputed Will) and Mr Purll (who said he searched the flat for a will) both told Mr Howard immediately after the Deceased's death that there was no will. Indeed, Mr Howard became so suspicious upon subsequently hearing of the production of the Disputed Will that he made contact with the Deceased's accountant, Mr Ali Osman, to obtain details of the Deceased's family.
b. page 2 of the Disputed Will was not disclosed for a further three months after the time Mrs May and her husband had attended the flat to collect the Deceased's papers.
c. As is evident from the video of the flat, it is relatively small and if the Disputed Will was genuine, it would have been found in its entirety shortly after the Deceased's death, particularly as Mr Middlemas would have known of its existence having allegedly witnessed it.
The nature and content of the Disputed Will
The conduct of Mr Middlemas
Conclusion
ESSENTIAL CHRONOLOGY
DATE | EVENT |
27.3.1938 | Neil born |
10.2.1946 | Jesse born |
Early 1970s | Jesse moves to London and meets Hugh Stanton |
c. 1999 | Jesse living at 11 Anhalt Road |
c. 2003 | Hugh died |
c. 2005 | Neil and Jesse become partners |
2011 | Charles Howard moved into neighbouring flat |
2016 | Jesse introduced to Mr. Middlemas |
25.5.2019 | Jason Purll rents room in Anhalt Road |
September 2019 | Jesse has several appointments/admissions to hospital for difficulty swallowing- unable to swallow solids. Surgery recommended. |
September 2019 | Last time Billy spoke to Jesse. Discussed his Mercedes car which was too big for him |
November 2019 | Last time Mary spoke to Jesse |
Early December 2019 | Operation to correct swallowing – operation successful |
December 2019 | Billy suffers a stroke |
End of December 2019 | Jesse texts Billy to wish him Happy New Year- Billy unable to reply due to being in hospital |
2.1.2020 | Date of Disputed Will |
Mid Jan 2020 | Billy discharged from hospital. Texts Jesse but no reply |
12.1.2020 | Neil admitted to hospital following a stroke- fell and was unresponsive |
13.1.2020 | Neil reports that sometimes has carers but they are not very good |
End January 2020 | Mr. Sangha told Mary he had spoken to Jesse at this time about a Will but Jesse was going to wait until he had found a flat |
3.2.2020 | Jesse admitted as emergency. Dies of peritonitis |
c. early March 2020 | Neil moved from hospital to Ashmead Care Home for end of life care |
End of March 2020 | Billy calls Jesse and speaks to Jason Purll and told that Jesse had died. Billy calls Mary and Mary calls Arthur |
End March/early April 2020 | Arthur calls flat and speaks to Jason Purll, who says had searched the flat but had not been able to find details of next of kin. Agreed that Mary would sort out Jesse/s affairs |
Early/mid- April 2020 | Billy called the flat to ask questions about Jesse's death. Told that Jesse had asked Jason Purll to take him to hospital and that he had been drinking. He died the same day |
April 2020 | Jason Purll gave Mary, John Sangha's phone number. Obtained details of the estate |
23 April 2020 | Mary registers Jesse's death |
28 April 2020 | Neil dies |
29/30.4.2020 | Mary instructs Co-op and advised to collect papers from flat |
1.5.2020 | Mary spoke to John Sangha about visiting flat. Originally arranged for 2.5.2020 with Jason Purll who then asks that it be 3.5.2020 |
3.5.2020 (Sunday) | Mary and Robert visit flat. Are met by Jason Purll who tells them there has been a development and a will has been found Collect papers and shown page 1 of the Disputed Will Mr. Middlemas sits on the settee Jason Purll tells them that Neil had died but that he had a brother who was well off and had classic cars |
c. 3.5.2020 | Arthur calls flat to speak to Jason Purll to ask why will not mentioned before. Told that was found in Neil's paperwork. Jason Purll volunteers that Mr. Middlemas had not seen Jesse for 12 weeks and had not been aware that had died |
4.5.2020 | John Sangha calls Mary to say certain Jesse had not made a will because of the conversation he had had with Jesse just before he died |
4/5.5.2020 | Mr. Middlemas instructs Bonnetts solicitors |
5.5.2020 | Bonnetts suggest they had complete Disputed Will by this date |
12.6.2020 | Affidavits of due execution in the names of Mr. Lloyd-Jennings and Mr. Ajram |
11.8.2020 | Affidavits of due execution provided to Coop by Bonnetts |
25.3.2021 | Coop writes to alleged witnesses at addresses on page 2 |
30.3.2021 | Letter purportedly from Mr. Lloyd Jennings |
16.4.2021 | Mr. Middlemas causes payment of the balance on Neil's accounts to himself |
23.4.2021 | Letter to Mr. Lloyd Jennings's daughter at address in Stroud- no reply |
29.4.2021 | Letter to Mr. Ajram at address on Affidavit- returned addressee unknown |
21.7.2021 | Letter of Claim- annotation that the Disputed Will was executed at "Ashley's" |
13.10.2021 | Questions to Bonnetts about circumstances in which will prepared |
19.10.2021 | Bonnetts reply that cannot remember when he was asked to witness the Disputed Will or what time of day it was executed |
14.4.2022 | Proceedings issued |
24.6.2022 | Letters of Administration for Neil estate |
3.8.2022 | Santander seek recovery of the sums paid out to Mr. Middlemas on the grounds that not entitled because not the executor |
5.10.2022 | Interim administrators appointed |
7.8.2023 | CCMC |
21.11.2023 | Unless order for Mr. Middlemas to file a statement setting out the circumstances in which the Disputed Will was executed |
28.3.2024 | Defence struck out |
12.8.2024 | Relief from sanction application dismissed |
3.9.2024 | Trial |
Note 1 A copy of the chronology is attached to this transcript. [Back]