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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll