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

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Jean-François Le Gal

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Jean-François Le Gal

Penningtons Manches Cooper strengthens international disputes team with appointment of leading arbitration partner

Shakespeare Martineau—Aaron Sanders & Kate Saunders

Shakespeare Martineau—Aaron Sanders & Kate Saunders

Shakespeare Martineau strengthens trust and estates disputes team with new appointments

Bellevue Law—Shannon Moore

Bellevue Law—Shannon Moore

Bellevue Law strengthens employment disputes and international advisory capability with senior associate appointment

NEWS
A divorced woman has secured funding to participate in her former husband’s inquest after the Legal Aid Agency reconsidered repeated refusals
The Thirlwall Inquiry has exposed a ‘complete failure’ to protect babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, but its recommendations must now be put into practice
More than 500 former rugby players can pursue brain injury claims despite serious failures to disclose documents ordered by the High Court
When does a solicitor’s retainer become a contentious business agreement? The Court of Appeal’s decision in Broadfield Law UK LLP v Barnes shows that listing hourly rates alone will not do, leaving firms and clients uncertain about their rights over bills
Developers in areas with poorly performing councils can apply directly to the Planning Inspectorate for permission under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
back-to-top-scroll