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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll