HCR Law acts for the successful claimant in a long-running dispute over the estate of Yeamon Keith Care

A recent case in which we acted for the successful claimant is a salutary lesson in why anyone who challenges the validity of will needs to be on very firm legal ground before doing so. It also reinforces the principle of testamentary freedom in this country (whereby a testator is free to bequeath their assets to whomsoever they wish), regardless of how unpalatable the result is to the disappointed beneficiaries.

In a further, unusual twist, the judge ordered the principal litigant, namely the third defendant, to pay his fellow defendants’ costs (who were the executors of the will). This was a reflection not only of the thin legal ground on which the defendants’ case rested, but also of the fact that the executors only incurred legal costs because of the third defendant’s unwise challenge to the will. The substantive judgment (Ellis v Ellis & Ors [2024] EWHC 3416 (Ch)) was handed down in January 2025, and the costs judgment handed down in October (Ellis v Ellis & Ors Re Care (Deceased) [2025] EWHC 2609 (Ch)), both of which are now available on the National Archives website.

A brief background to ‘the case’

The dispute centred on Tregear Farm in Cornwall, farmed by successive generations of the Care family, that had been divided between two brothers, Keith and Vivian Care, after the death of their mother, Betty. Keith, a notable figure in rare breed circles, maintained a Dairy Shorthorn herd (one of only two pure pedigree herds in the world) which was of sufficient interest that cattle were purchased for the King’s Highgrove estate while he was still Prince of Wales. Despite severe scoliosis leaving him unable to sleep in a bed and almost bent double by the end of his life, Keith, who was unmarried, continued farming with support from local farmers, charities and rare breed enthusiasts, including the claimant, Luke Ellis, to whom he left his share of Tregear Farm.

The issues:

With help from Michael Clarke, a volunteer from the Farm Community Network, Keith’s will was drawn up by a solicitor in 2016 and witnessed by Mr Clarke and Keith’s GP, Dr Fairlie. Keith had nominated Luke Ellis, a neighbouring farmer and nephew of one of Keith’s oldest friends, as the beneficiary to his estate because of their joint interest in rare breeds and because Luke had provided considerable help when he struggled with poor health. He left nothing to his brother Vivian or his two nephews, all of whom farmed elsewhere in the county. Vivian challenged the will on three grounds:

• Due execution.
• Testamentary capacity.
• Knowledge and approval.

Vivian also claimed proprietary estoppel, maintaining that Keith had made repeated assurances that he and his sons would inherit Keith’s share of Tregear to ensure that the farm remained in the family and that he had relied on those assurances to his detriment

The judgment

HHJ Michael Berkley, sitting as a High Court judge, found for the claimant, Luke Ellis. The judgment is noteworthy for its careful assessment of the witnesses and the realities of farming life and is a vivid reminder that the law of wills is as much about the realities of human relationships as it is about legal doctrine:

1. Execution

The will was properly executed having been witnessed by Keith’s GP, Dr Fairlie, a ‘veteran witnesser of wills’ and Michael Clarke, who had driven Keith to the surgery. The presumption of due execution was not displaced by the GP’s lack of recollection of the presence of the second witness in what would have been a fleeting meeting.

2. Capacity:

The judge rejected Vivian’s argument that Keith’s devotion to his animals amounted to a personality disorder depriving him of testamentary capacity. The evidence showed a man who was intellectually engaged and socially connected. The judge observed that ‘many farmers never give up until it is impossible to continue’, and that Keith’s approach to his animals was ‘cautious and caring’, not obsessive. Keith had logical grounds for concluding that he did not wish to entrust the future of his animals to his family and that they did not in general deserve his bounty in circumstances where there was almost no evidence of any sort of ongoing relationship or closeness between Keith and Vivian and his sons.

3. Knowledge and approval:

No suspicious circumstances were found. The will was professionally drafted, reviewed by Keith at a meeting with his proposed executors and Mr Clarke, and the court was satisfied Keith knew and approved of its contents

Proprietary estoppel

Whilst there was an expectation that Tregear would remain in the family, any statements made by Keith were based on his intention at that particular stage to leave his share of the farm to his family and did not amount to an assurance sufficient to support a proprietary estoppel claim. Vivian could not point convincingly to anything that amounted to detrimental reliance. Although the disappointment felt by the family was genuine it did not give rise to any remedy.

Costs

The costs judgment is also of interest, traversing the Spiers v English exceptions as well as the application of Part 36. The key conclusions reached by the judge are as follows:

Probate exceptions rejected:

The court rejected the contention that Keith’s conduct caused the litigation.  The court also found that any period of reasonable investigation, for the purposes of the second exception, had expired prior to the issue of proceedings, in circumstances where the executors had given Vivian authority to obtain medical records and other documents to enable him to investigate the position – a point which underscores the importance of early voluntary disclosure in cases of this description.

Conduct and ADR:

Luke’s delay in agreeing to mediation was reasonable in circumstances where Vivian had refused voluntary disclosure. Luke’s failure to issue a pre-action letter made no difference to the trajectory of the litigation and did not justify any costs sanction. Indeed, the judge noted that Luke had issued proceedings ‘having got understandably fed up with waiting for Vivian to formulate his case.’

Part 36 offer:

Luke’s January 2024 offer was valid and genuine (amounting in terms of value to around 14.6% of the estate); CPR 36.17 consequences would therefore apply, including indemnity costs from February 2024, interest at 5% above base, and a 10% uplift on costs.

Executors’ costs:

In an unusual departure, Vivian was also ordered to pay the executors’ costs as they were incurred solely because he had started the litigation and it would be manifestly unfair to the claimant for the estate to pay them.

Summary

There was nothing in the judgment that upheld any part of Vivian’s case. The judge found that although the brothers had not fallen out, Vivian had been become disengaged and not particularly interested in the livestock, something that was of critical importance to Keith. By nominating Luke as the principal beneficiary, Keith was simply exercising his right to testamentary freedom based on who he felt most deserved to inherit. Vivian’s decision to challenge his brother’s will was misguided, not least as the evidence that Keith lacked testamentary capacity was weak at best. Likewise, the proprietary estoppel claim lacked merit, with the judge noting, ‘The worst that can be said against Keith is that he did not live up to expectations that he had allowed to develop within the family.’ The fact that the Judge directed Vivian to pay Luke’s costs plus those of the executors (the first and second defendants) is a good indication that the whole case lacked merit.

At the heart of contentious probate litigation is that although general principles apply, every case turns on its particular facts. There is no “one size fits all approach” but what is critical is information gathering and careful analysis of the facts at the outset to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for pursuing a claim. If you believe you have grounds for challenging a will, make sure you consult a solicitor who understands the legal procedures and will be honest with you about your chances of success. Flying a kite in a case of this type is more likely than not to land you with a very large bill.

As lawyers who specialise in will disputes, we will tell you if you have strong enough grounds for challenging a will. If you do, we will work with you to try and resolve the dispute as quickly and sensibly as possible. If you do not, we will save you a considerable amount of time and money.