header-logo header-logo

Wills and Probate

Hogg v Hogg; Hogg v Otford Tool & Gauge Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 2240 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 54 (Oct)

In 2001 William Hogg set up two settlements (the settlements). His son (R) and daughter (A) were appointed as trustees. There was an additional earlier settlement of shares in a family company which benefited A and another daughter S, but not R.

R was initially a beneficiary and trustee under the settlements until Mr Hogg executed deeds removing R as trustee and excluding him from benefiting under both settlements. R claimed that Mr Hogg had entered into the deeds of exclusion and removal by virtue of undue influence exerted on him by A.

In considering the claim, Mr Justice Lindsay noted that where undue influence is asserted:

 

“The personalities involved become relevant. A factor in judging whether a given transaction has been a product of undue influence includes an examination of how the ‘victim’ behaved normally, when free from influence.” (para 44)

 

The evidence in the case did not paint a picture of Mr Hogg as a man who was likely to be easily persuaded against his will. It also portrayed a person whose “beliefs paid little regard to a commonly recognised need for equality of disposition to children”.

Lindsay J accepted that Mr Hogg did repose trust and confidence in A who was his primary carer, but held that the transactions could be sufficiently accounted for by ordinary motives. The evidential burden of proving undue influence remained on R, therefore, and he had failed to satisfy it for the following reasons.

(i) A’s position as Mr Hogg’s carer was not secure or assured.

(ii) Mr Hogg had a motive to enter into the deeds since he appears to have believed R was under the influence of a person he had a strong dislike for and whom he did not trust.

(iii) The deeds were drawn up by a solicitor who “had sufficient contact with the family to be able to give detailed evidence on the deeds”. He was trustee of one of the settlements, had administered Mr Hogg’s wife’s estate, and had prepared a will for Mr Hogg. He had two meetings with Mr Hogg to take instructions on preparing the deeds.

Issue: 7308 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Wills & Probate
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll