The High Court has recently handed down a fascinating and highly unusual probate decision in the case of Lowe v Daniells.
This case raised important questions about disclaimers of legacies, the conduct of beneficiaries, and how far a personal representative can go when a beneficiary simply refuses to engage. Ultimately, the court was asked to make a decision as to whether conduct by a beneficiary could amount to a disclaimer of a gift.
This article examines the High Court’s decision and highlights the key issues, the court’s approach and the implications for stalled probate administrations.
Jean Phyllis Norman died in 2018 aged 99, leaving a will dated 1997. Her husband and the named executor had both predeceased her. In those circumstances the effect of the will was as follows:
As the named executors had died, Ms Daniells had the primary right to take out a grant but, from the outset, Ms Daniells did not engage with the solicitors attempting to administer the estate.
Between 2018 and 2025, the solicitors made extensive attempts to contact Ms Daniells, who repeatedly stated that she believed there was nothing in the estate for her despite being informed of the contrary, and that she wanted nothing to do with the administration of the estate.
During the course of the correspondence, Ms Daniells became increasingly hostile, asserting that the solicitors dealing with the estate administration were harassing her and often using coarse and abusive language. Ms Daniells refused to sign a deed of renunciation in respect of her right to take out a grant and refused to accept documents personally served on her. This unfortunately left the estate in a state of deadlock. Eventually, the solicitors administering the estate obtained an order passing over Mr Daniell’s prior right and secured a grant of letters of administration.
Although part of the estate could then be administered, the residue remained undistributed some seven years after the deceased’s death. Ms Daniells neither signed a disclaimer nor clearly stated that she refused to accept the inheritance that she had been given.
The administrator therefore issued a claim seeking, among other things, a declaration that the defendant had legally disclaimed the gift of residue through her conduct, and an order that it could instead be distributed to the substitute beneficiaries.
The case therefore raised a deceptively simple but legally delicate question - can prolonged non-engagement, hostility, and refusal to cooperate amount to a disclaimer of a testamentary gift?
The court reviewed the established principles on such disclaimers and held that a gift vests automatically in a beneficiary upon death, even if the beneficiary is unaware of it. Acceptance is therefore presumed, although a beneficiary can disclaim the gift once they become aware of it.
The difficulty in this case was that Ms Daniells had repeatedly asserted that there was nothing within the estate to inherit but she had never formally disclaimed her inheritance.
In this case, Ms Daniells believed that there was no money in the estate. The court considered whether mistaken belief might affect capacity, but it found that there was no evidence of Ms Daniells lacking mental capacity.
The judge declined to make a definitive ruling on whether a disclaimer had occurred in this case. The reason was that the substitute residuary beneficiaries were not parties to the claim which meant that, if the court declared that no disclaimer had occurred, they might be unfairly deprived of their opportunity to respond.
Instead, the court adopted a pragmatic and protective solution. Drawing inspiration from the case of Re Benjamin, the court granted relief allowing the administrator to distribute the residuary estate on the basis that the defendant had disclaimed, while protecting the administrator from personal liability.
This meant that the administrator could safely distribute the residue to the substitute beneficiaries without the risk of facing personal claims against her for devastavit or breach of duty. However, Ms Daniells’ rights were not extinguished, so that if she later wished to assert her entitlement she could bring proceedings against the substitute beneficiaries.
In short, the court struck a balance between administrative finality and substantive fairness.
This case is noteworthy for several reasons:
The court reaffirmed that disclaimer requires a clear refusal to accept the gift. Silence and hostility may not automatically suffice, especially where others with an interest are not party to the proceedings.
Even where the practical outcome seems obvious, the court was careful not to determine substantive rights in the absence of all interested parties.
The judgment demonstrates the court’s willingness to protect administrators who find themselves paralysed by an uncooperative beneficiary.
The decision made by the court in the Lowe v Daniells case is informative, albeit unusual. It highlights the limits of disclaimer by conduct, the court’s sensitivity to absent parties, and the pragmatic tools available to break a probate deadlock.
For further information, please contact our disputed wills team.
XYBC: next generation networking in Exeter : Ashfords Connect: XYBC Clip 'n climb
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
