Executor seeks guidance on estate distribution amid disclaimer

4 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court resolves estate distribution dispute following a beneficiary's disclaimer

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, recently addressed a complex issue concerning the distribution of an estate in the case of White vs Williams. The case revolved around the estate of Elfed Williams, who passed away on 11 June 2023, leaving a will dated 31 March 2014. The claimant, David Leslie White, served as the sole executor of the will, while the defendant, Keith Elfed Williams, was a beneficiary and the deceased's son.

The estate's net value was determined to be £393,974, with specific pecuniary legacies amounting to £20,000. The will's provisions included a division of the residuary estate into six equal parts, with one part designated for Keith. However, Keith, who was estranged from the deceased, expressed his intention to disclaim his share, valued at over £60,000, and did not have any children.

Despite being provided with a Notice of Disclaimer, Keith did not return a signed copy, leading to the commencement of legal proceedings on 22 January 2024. Keith did not acknowledge or respond to the claim, prompting the court to consider the implications of his disclaimer on the estate's distribution.

Master Clark, presiding over the case, examined whether Keith's disclaimer constituted a 'failure' under the will's clause 6(b), which would allow the disclaimed share to accrue to the remaining beneficiaries. The court also considered whether the disclaimer should result in a partial intestacy, distributing the share among intestacy beneficiaries, including the deceased's relatives, Lorna Davies, Eirwen Hill, and Marsden Williams.

The court referred to the legal principles of will interpretation, particularly the general principles outlined in Marley v Rawlings, and the effect of disclaimers as established in Re Scott. Additionally, the amendments to the Wills Act 1837 by the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 were considered, which treat a disclaiming beneficiary as having predeceased the testator unless a contrary intention is evident in the will.

Master Clark concluded that the natural and ordinary meaning of 'failure' in clause 6(b) extended to a disclaimer, thereby allowing the disclaimed share to accrue to the remaining residuary beneficiaries. This interpretation aligned with the intention of the will and avoided a partial intestacy.

The judgment provided clarity on the application of disclaimers in estate distribution, emphasizing the importance of express substitutionary clauses in wills. The case serves as a significant reference for practitioners dealing with similar issues of estate administration and will interpretation.