“However, I would want you to ensure that Susie’s reasonable needs are appropriately catered for. Subject to these considerations, I would wish my Executors to invest the remainder of my residuary estate with a principal aim of achieving capital growth so that if, for example, for fiscal reasons Susie has an interest in the income from this part of my residuary estate that interest could be modest”
“You will have the power to advance capital to Susie but, as I say, I doubt if this will be necessary and I would want you to regard the part of my residuary estate not given to Susie outright as primarily for the long term benefit of my grandchildren and remoter issue. As noted in my Will I have at present 9 grandchildren namely the four children of Henry, the three children of Mary and the two children of Lucy. You will have a discretionary power to advance capital to them or for their benefit which I would want you to feel free to exercise without some special regard to Susie’s position unless in your estimation there is some unforeseen reason for doing so, but I consider my grandchildren should not have access to capital sums of material amount until they reach the age of 25 or more. I am particularly anxious that my grandson Leo Gabriel should be adequately provided for so as to ensure that he has a good education. Although I would like my grandchildren to be the principal beneficiaries of that part of my residuary estate not given absolutely to my wife Susie, I am, however, conscious of the fact that whilst my daughter Mary and my son Henry are, I believe, well provided for, my daughter Lucy may need to be helped financially bearing in mind that she is now divorced and has the responsibility of bringing up on her own two children. I therefore would want my Executors and Trustees to bear in mind particularly her and her family’s needs which I consider should be given some priority over the interests of my other grandchildren. Clearly circumstances may change and as Trustees you must exercise discretions at the relevant time and in the light of all appropriate considerations. I would, however, wish you to consider that Lucy should be supported so that she has a reasonable level of income. Subject to the foregoing, I would want you to treat each of my grandchildren as having an equal interest in the discretionary trust fund. I hope that my three children will feel able to put aside any painful differences and difficulties as have existed so that they can in future live happily and in a friendly manner with each other and that they will accept that these wishes reflect my equal affection for each of them.”
“2.1 My priority is to ensure that Susie is able to maintain our current standard of living. 2.2 However, I anticipate that Susie will have sufficient assets of her own and from the residue of my estate to enable her to do so and therefore assets from this fund should be used for the other beneficiaries of the trust. Since I believe that my children have already received sufficient financial support, I would principally like assets to pass to my grandchildren or their children. Although I principally wish assets to pass to younger generations, I would not want children to receive too much capital while they are still relatively young. For this reason, unless there are overwhelming reasons such as education or housing needs, I would prefer that any capital entitlement be deferred until they are 25.”
“In addition, when exercising your discretion under the discretionary trust over my residuary estate, I would also like you to liaise with the trustees of my Bermudian pension fund. I would wish distributions made from the pension fund to be taken into account when making distributions from the discretionary trust, so that the principle of equality of distributions is applied across both my residuary estate and the pension fund. The trustees of the pension fund have similar powers to yours and I have prepared a similar letter of wishes to accompany the pension fund. My principal aim for the pension fund is for it to continue as a dynastic trust for the benefit of future generations of my family. As such, I would wish the distributions made soon after my death to be chiefly from my residuary estate rather than the pension fund. I have also been advised that, for tax reasons, it would be preferable for distributions to be made to beneficiaries who are resident in the UK from my residuary estate rather than the pension fund. Assets from the pension fund could then be retained to be distributed to members of my family who are resident outside the UK.”
“By the terms of the Trust Deed constituting the Pension Fund, any funds still in the trust at the time of my death will be held on discretionary trust for the benefit of my relatives and dependents and in the exercise of your discretion under that trust, you may have regard to any instrument expressing my wishes. This letter is intended to provide you with guidance as to my wishes. It does not impose any trust or legal obligation on you, nor is it intended to bind or fetter you in the exercise of the powers and discretions vested in you under the terms of the Pension Fund. So as to assist you in understanding the wishes expressed in this letter, it is important for you to be familiar with my family situation. Above all else, I am concerned about the future welfare of my present wife, Susan, and you should always regard this as my most paramount consideration. I have set out some of my thoughts in this regard below. I also have three grown children as a result of my first marriage, Mary Woodhouse, Lucy Torrington and Henry Thornton. On the event of the breakdown of my first marriage I entered into a clean break settlement with my first wife, which should take care of all her future needs. A settlement established in 1971 gave to each of my children a starting capital of£1,000,000 . Mary has three daughters. Her fund (still held in the 1971 settlement) has increased to a comfortable level and she has no immediate financial concerns. Henry has four daughters. Unlike Mary, he took his initial fund whilst working overseas and greatly increased its value. He is also successful in his own career. Unfortunately, Lucy has not been so fortunate. She used her fund to make a number of investments in property, as a result of which she has much less than her brother and sister. She also took her fund whilst living overseas. In addition, she divorced within six months of her daughter’s birth, since when she has produced a son out of wedlock. At present, Lucy’s future does not look financially stable. Against this backdrop must be seen my principal concern to ensure the continued comfort after my death of my wife, Susan. Although provision will be made for Susan out of my United Kingdom estate, I wish to ensure that she has sufficient income for her needs, particularly in view of the fact that she is considerably younger than me and may well have a lengthy widowhood. In view of all of these considerations, my wishes are as follows. To the extent that it is possible to do so, I would like to see the trust assets remain offshore. I would ask you to liaise with my wife and with the executors of my estate, Mr. A.H. Isaacs and my son Henry Thornton, to determine her financial requirements and whether trust assets should be made available for her benefit. Those assets remaining in trust should, if feasible in the context of prevailing family circumstances, be retained as a fund for the following purposes. It is apparent that the needs of my children at the time of my death may be disproportionate and it is not my wish to leave any of my children, particularly Lucy, impecunious. However, I am also aware that it is unfair to benefit Lucy, at the expense of Mary and Henry, where Lucy’s situation may be largely self-induced. For this reason, I would prefer that the trust assets be used principally for the education and advancement of my grandchildren. I would hope that you would liaise with tax advisors and my executors to ensure that any benefit to be conferred upon my grandchildren, or my children should you deem this to be appropriate in the circumstances, be structured in the most advantageous manner possible. I realise that the wishes expressed in this letter confer upon you a very broad discretion, in consultation with my wife and executors. In my estimation, this is far preferable to making decisions today which may be completely inappropriate after I am gone…”
“alert, interested, and just the same as always”
“I find any suggestion that he might have buckled under pressure to alter his testamentary intentions very hard to believe”
“Whilst [Richard] was keen to take [Susie’s] views into account, as would be expected, given the length of their marriage, he would always ensure that he did what he thought was the right thing”
“In between these family gatherings, I, or my mother and I, had visited the Thorntons at their home in Pelham Place. “Behind closed doors”
“I am very sorry indeed to miss Mary’s 50th birthday celebrations, but I think on the whole it’s best that I am not there. I gather that the ‘experts’ that she has been consulting think that a lot of her problems are down to me, and at nearly 78 I find that a bit hard to take having lived every minute of the last 50 years and having (still) a pretty good memory. Having started out best friends Susie is not apparently acceptable – and that is also hardly acceptable to me – nor should it be. So, as I say, on the whole it’s good that we cannot be there (tho’ we have received no invitation!) – but it is also very sad, especially as one approaches the twilight years.”
“The 2009 Will is forged. [Lucy] believes that Richard signed the execution page, but that this belongs to another document, perhaps another Will [although it is accepted that the Court cannot be asked to make this finding in light of the dismissal of Lucy’s application to amend]”
“Susie had overridden his will, and beaten him into submission, just like when my father offered to pay off my debts”
“We invited family and friends to stay with us in a rented house in Thurlstone in Devon. Richard and Susie were among our guests. Lucy and her mother turned up unannounced and uninvited and would not leave the property. They created an embarrassing scene. The police had to be called. It was a very unpleasant event which took place in front of young children and people from outside the family. It was unfair of them to pitch up as we were enjoying a lovely quiet and very private time and, above all, Susie was present, Richard’s new wife. Similarly, the same happened when the two of them – Lucy and her mother – turned up uninvited at an after-christening supper party at Richard and Susie’s home. Again, we had quite a few guests present and they behaved inappropriately outside. They stood out in the street and shouted obscenities at my parents when they were walking home.”
“Henry, I have tried so many times, and so many times failed, to be on holiday with, and see Daddy and Susie, and I am so saddened that you think it has been otherwise. My last effort to see them, (Glyndebourne this summer) a special outing to include Caroline and Georgina was a disaster. When we spent weekends at Thorney Crescent, Daddy had to pretend to be walking in Hyde Park in order to visit us. He would catch the bus to the flat, be stressed to the nines and then dash off again as soon as he arrived, to make it tie in the length of a walk!! Sometimes we dropped him off around the corner of his house so as not to be seen. Otherwise they were always busy. In the end the only way we could see him was to go to his church and have a snatched pub drink. You can imagine how well that plan went down!!! This Summer, when he came to visit Charlotte, Susie threatened to be gone on his return. These threats have been going on since they got back from Bermuda and before. Whoever told you, and Peter, that I am heartlessly abandoning my parents, was not, as you well know, Nicki. … I do so miss my friendship with Daddy, more than anything, but he is in a very difficult situation. When he tries to see us or we try to see him it only seems to make his and our situation worse. It doesn’t help when he speaks ill of me to you and others. A lot of what he says is far from the truth and I hope I managed to put a few things straight with you Henry, before you slam the phone down ... Please believe me I have no fight, I did not mean to insult or be rude. I acknowledge that I have insulted you both and I am sorry and I ask your forgiveness.”
“... Our phone call the other Saturday was hardly fun on either side and I’m sure many words were spoken in haste on both sides. You can consider that an apology. The central problem was eloquently expressed in your first letter. I quote “together with Mummy, Lucy and Daddy I am now estranged from you both, your lovely girls, and Nicki’s family as well”
“Could I suggest that you make Mrs Torrington aware of this and ask her to arrange settlement of Leo’s extras. You might suggest that she approaches the individual who has placed a caveat on the estate.”
“For all these cogent reasons, I trust you will assure Mary that she need not fear that the Will (and the trusts created by it) could or would be administered in a manner unfair to her or her children. I hope you can recommend to Mary that her best interests, and those of her children and the family as a whole, would be to lift the Caveat before29th January 2014 so as to allow Probate to be obtained.”
“1. The Will itself is not in any way controversial in terms of its drafting and I am grateful that you have explained this to Mary. I did not have sight of the Will prior to his death but, like Mary, was aware of my father’s intention that his children were not to be significant beneficiaries. It was, therefore, unsurprising to me that the part of his estate not left to Susie is to be held in trust for his grandchildren (with the proviso that Susie retains a life interest). In practical terms this means that the grandchildren are unlikely to receive any capital until Susie either passes away or waives her rights to her interest in the Life Interest Fund. 2. The principal provisions of the Will in relation to his grandchildren is that they are given an interest in the estate which is to be ‘in equal shares absolutely’. While the Will does give the Executors discretionary powers, these have to be exercised in the context of Clause 12.1 of the Will. The intent and the instruction could not be spelt out more clearly. While it is not possible for the Executors to share the detail of any letter of wishes, since they are expressly bound by my father’s instruction that it be confidential, I can confirm that there is nothing of note in the letter of wishes which conflicts with clause 12.1 mentioned above. 3. I would ask you to point out to Mary that the Executor’s powers have to be exercised in the best interests of the beneficiaries and in accordance with the Trust imposed by the Will. You can re-assure Mary that all the Executors recognise their responsibilities. Two of the four Executors are highly respected Solicitors and both very good friends of my father for several decades prior to his death. As such they are uniquely well positioned to understand my father’s wishes and to administer the Estate. While Mary may fear that her relationship with Susie could be an issue, the reality is that Susie has the same responsibilities as the other Executors. Mary and Susie will have to take on trust my intention to administer the estate in accordance with the wishes of my father as set out in his Will. 4. I might add that when the time comes to distribute either income or capital to the grandchildren it would not be unreasonable for the grandchildren’s parents to expect to be consulted in case there are factors that they believe should be taken into account. … 5. It is now over one year since my father died and eleven months since I sent Mary a copy of his will. The Executors became aware of the Caveat last October while preparing to apply for Probate. In my opinion the Executors have been more than generous in the additional time that they have allowed Mary to remove the Caveat (including, of course, the most recent two week extension) given that she has been in possession of the Will for almost one year. The Executors, and their professional advisors, remain of the opinion that my father’s medical records, for the period leading up to his death, have absolutely no relevance to a Will that was made in September 2009 when he was unquestionably in full possession of his faculties.”
“As I hoped you wished, your email was well received and helped confirm what was likely to happen. Mary said that she was very grateful for your comments and additional reassurances about administering your father’s wishes and for further clarifying the position of the grandchildren. At some future date, Mary would like to consult with you directly and I am sure will take you up on this offer.”
“willing, indeed anxious, to consider your client’s precarious financial position and in light of it and having due regard to the Testator’s intentions are currently minded to exercise such discretions as are available to them fairly and promptly on the assumption that your client drops her opposition to the issue of the grant of probate forthwith. At present the Executors and Trustees, in the face of your client’s claim, are unable to carry out their respective functions because of this inability to obtain probate of the Will. The estate is effectively frozen to the detriment of all the beneficiaries including your client.”
“Therefore this letter is an open offer, capable of acceptance up to 4pm on22 November 2015 , whereby in the event of your client consenting to the dismissal of her defence and counterclaim, and to a grant of probate in common form of the 2009 Will, the Claimants will not seek an order for costs, other than an order that their costs be paid from the estate. If accepted, they would also be prepared to reimburse your client’s share of the mediation costs if these were paid by her.”
“(1) In certain circumstances a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a witness who might be expected to have material evidence to give on an issue in an action. (2) If a court is willing to draw such inferences, they may go to strengthen the evidence adduced on that issue by the other party or to weaken the evidence, if any, adduced by the party who might reasonably have been expected to call the witness. (3) There must, however, have been some evidence, however weak, adduced by the former on the matter in question before the court is entitled to draw the desired inference: in other words, there must be a case to answer on that issue. (4) If the reason for the witness’s absence or silence satisfies the court, then no such adverse inference may be drawn. If, on the other hand, there is some credible explanation given, even if it is not wholly satisfactory, the potentially detrimental effect of his/her absence or silence may be reduced or nullified.”
“[Mr Isaacs] has pointed out that by “appointing”
“There is nothing new about the above type of planning and it is actually contemplated in both your previous Letter of Wishes and the new version … enclosed”
“Richard’s principal aim in his estate planning is to ensure that Susie can continue to live with the standard of living that she is used to. Once Susie is appropriately provided for, Richard would also like to ensure that Lucy has sufficient assets since she is currently the least financially secure of his children. Assets should then primarily be held for the benefit of his grandchildren. Richard may wish to allow Lucy to benefit from the Bermudan pension fund.”
“An updated letter of wishes stating Richard’s intentions with respect to distributions from the trust, and requesting that Susie be involved in the decision making process, should be drafted to accompany the will”
“1.3 RT confirmed that his intention with regard to the pension fund was that it should primarily go to ST and thereafter to his grandchildren, but with the trustees having the power to distribute to his children if so needed, especially Lucy, since it currently appeared that she was likely to have most need of it. 1.4 ST commented that she had concerns over Lucy being favoured in any letter of wishes as Lucy and her mother were litigious and were likely to bring a claim if Lucy did not receive preferential treatment from such a letter. 1.7 …The trustees of the pension fund should think primarily in dynastic terms but they should liaise with ST and his executors to ensure that ST has been adequately provided for under his will in order to maintain her previous standard of living. The letter of wishes should also state that although RT anticipates that Mary and Henry have less need of distributions from the fund, they should not be eliminated from consideration. Lucy may need particular assistance but the primary focus should be on the grandchildren’s generation and beyond.”
“1.3 ST said her principal concern is that in the event of RT predeceasing her, Henry would be in a position to start telling her what she can and cannot do with her money, her life etc which she would resent. ST gets on satisfactorily with Henry on a non-business level and gets on particularly well with Henry’s wife but ST had been distinctly unimpressed on occasions at the way Henry had treated both his father and his sisters; ST said Henry had been rude to his father in business meetings in front of others. 1.4 SGC then took ST through the financial position she would be in were RT to predecease her; Pelham Place, the Australian property [and cash in bank accounts] would all pass to ST by survivorship … In addition, RT leaves half his residue to ST absolutely and if Henry were executor, apart from being involved in the selection of assets to appropriate to her half share, Henry would have no other involvement over this half share which ST would be entitled to as of right … SGC said that ST should think of [the BPF] as her first port of call for emergency funds over and above what she would inherit outright … It is only in the last resort that ST would need to look to the half share of RT’s residue retained in trust for financial help although she would be a beneficiary of it … ST acknowledged that it was right that Henry should be involved as Trustee of that fund … In fact, ST, upon reflection, felt that she had no problem with Henry as either a Trustee of the Continuing Will Trust or an executor of RT’s Will given SGC’s summary as above …”
“You leave your available nil rate band to Susie and your children and remoter issue on discretionary trusts. In your letter of wishes, you state that you wish Susie to have access to these funds if she requires it, but that, as you anticipate that she will have sufficient other funds, you would like these funds to be used primarily for your grandchildren and their children. You might like to include a reference to Lucy here?” (2) Against this text, Richard wrote: “Concerned not enough income – our current experience – access to all income for Susie.” (3) Paragraph 4 is entitled “Residuary estate”, and includes the following text: “I think the only thing which I am still not clear about is whether, if your interest in Pelham Place should for some unforeseen reason be as tenant in common, it should or should not be regarded as part of your residue for other purposes ie. half going to Susie free of trust and the other half remaining in trust.” (4) Against this, Richard wrote in manuscript: “House 100% to Susie.” (5) The text of paragraph 4 continues as follows: “I think it is important particularly from Susie’s point of view to make it clear that although Susie is a beneficiary of the life interest share of your residue, this is effectively for emergency purposes only.” (6) Against this text, Richard wrote: “No! Don’t agree.” (7) The text of paragraph 4 of the letter concludes as follows: “I say this as I think you know, one of Susie’s concerns is that she might be in a position of having to go cap in hand to Henry for financial assistance. I said that in the event of your predeceasing Susie, quite apart from the assets Susie would have in her own name (substantial) if she needed additional help her first port of call would very likely be the pension fund of which she would by then be the principal beneficiary.” (8) Against the word “substantial”, Richard wrote two question marks. (9) Finally, at the end of the text of the letter, Richard wrote the following in relation to paragraph 4: “Current conditions in UK make this read like yesterday’s news. Giant inflation – worse still to come. Susie will need every penny of income which averages 2% before tax. I spend capital – she will have to spend capital and as she is naturally frugal, so that should be safe. Some greedy bankers get more than my net worth as annual salary – likely those sums become the norm. Please explain whether clause 10 (powers of executors to over-ride) – negates clause 11. If so cannot sign the Will.”
“2.1 My priority is to ensure that Susie is able to maintain our current standard of living. 2.2 However, I anticipate that Susie will have sufficient assets of her own and from the residue of my estate to enable her to do so and therefore assets from this fund should be used for the other beneficiaries of the trust.” (2) Against this second sentence, Richard wrote the word “delete” and, further, the words “which requires all the income!” (3) Paragraph 4 of the letter is headed “Residuary estate”, and includes the following text: “The remaining half of my estate is left on life interest trusts for Susie. Since I believe that Susie will have sufficient assets to maintain her current standard of living, I would wish you to invest this half of my residuary estate with a principal aim of achieving capital growth so that the income produced by it is modest.” (4) The second sentence of this text has been struck through, and Richard has written against it the words “Don’t agree”
“I want full access for S to all my current assets – but want it to be subject to trustees.” (5) The same paragraph of the letter makes reference to the differing financial positions of Mary and Henry on the one hand as being “I believe, well provided for” and Lucy, who “may need to be helped financially bearing in mind that she is now divorced and has the responsibility of bringing up on her own two children on modest means”
“I therefore would want my Executors and Trustees to bear in mind particularly her and her family’s needs which I consider should be given some priority over the interests of my other grandchildren. Clearly circumstances may change and as Trustees you must exercise discretions at the relevant time and in the light of all appropriate considerations. I would, however, wish you to consider that Lucy should be supported so that she has a reasonable level of income.” (6) The final words of this last sentence have been deleted by Richard, who has written beneath them the following words: “Lucy should only be bailed out if in DIRE straits.”
“I suggested that Susie’s security would be improved still further if she were appointed to be one of your executors because, as Trustees have to act unanimously, Susie would effectively have a power of veto over distributions to members of your family other than herself during her lifetime which would mean that Susie’s life interest could not be overridden without her agreement.”
“I have solved the mystery! Stephen gave me a copy before we left your office, and I have just found it, neatly folded, but unanswered. In the drawer “for important papers.”
“Richard created a settlement of GT shares in 1971, which was exported in 1978 to Safferys in Guernsey. In 1984, the Trustees sold out for about£3M . The three main beneficiaries are Henry, Mary and Lucy. The Note records that Henry ‘is a very successful Fund Manager, until recently, based in Hong Kong’. When he was in Hong Kong, he persuaded the Trustees to advance his one third share of the settlement out to him. Presumably, this was in order to ‘wash out’ the Trust gains, being the capital gains made not only on the sale in 1984 but also considerable further Trust gains which arose because Richard Thornton continued to manage the assets very successfully. Henry then re-settled on his children – at any rate part of the funds.”
“Lucy ‘took fright’ at the end of 1987 when the stock market collapsed and I assume went more or less into cash. In particular, she no longer wants her father to manage her fund and he does not do so. It is managed elsewhere and apparently she has quarrelled with his advisors. Apparently she has had considerable borrowings from her part of the Trust to include, in particular, to open a coffee shop in Clapham which lost£1M .”
“The situation is considerably worse than I think you realise. Not only does she have a mortgage on Thatch Cottage, but she has also apparently borrowed£100,000 from her mother, and I fear there may be personal bank overdrafts as well. I have asked her to decide, as a matter of priority, to sell as much surplus property as she can as soon as possible. In particular, Webb’s Road must go. As part and parcel of this I think it would be wise if the Trustees distributed, also as soon as possible, the loan account to her, although the distribution must be linked in my view to the disposal of Webb’s Road in order to impress upon her the urgency of taking action. She also understands that she must pay the Revenue the sums that are due to them.”
“I enclose a letter I have written Clive which I hope will make sense to you. I am alarmed at the rate at which you have been spending money and the news of a loan from your mother of£100,000 is really bad news. If you go on at that rate, you will be through the investments in a very few months and then what on earth are you going to live on?? You really must take a firm hold on yourself and come to grips with reality. You must sell such property as you do not need. After all, you owe mum£100,000 and the Revenue another£70,000 . Both these debts could be repaid if you sell Webb’s Road. I think the investments could safely yield you about£32,000 if very carefully handled and Hurlingham about£20,000 – so you would have£1,000 a week on which you should pay v. little tax while you live in France. But for all this to happen will require your co-operation, and there really isn’t too much time left if you are not to avoid a major financial disaster. So do please listen to me and your advisors and act now.”
“I hope you will find the time to read this letter carefully, because the issues raised in it are very important to me and quite difficult to write about given all the unhappiness in the past. It fills me with profound sadness to know that I have a family who cannot get on together and I would hate to depart this world knowing that things are as they are. Let me say at the outset how distressed I am that all these divisions exist in the family. I came from a happy and united family, and it would have been unthinkable for Chich and me not to have any relationship with our sister Anne, let alone for any of us not to speak to one of our parents. I really don’t know precisely how and why these divisions have come about between you and your mother and sister/brother, but the time has come when some form of reconciliation must be made. … Can it be that my own children have no forgiveness or charity in their hearts. If they know or understand me they will know that this is totally alien to my thinking. Also, this whole matter is causing (and in some cases has caused) lasting harm to your own children, my grandchildren, and will continue with future generations unless something is done. When I look at Susie’s and Nickie’s happy and united families it is brought home to me the more. While Susie and I were in England recently we had lunch with your mother, at her request. She is really very distressed at the state of affairs and no reasonable person would wish to leave anybody in such an unhappy state. It would be most cruel to do so, and I cannot, as your father and head of the family countenance it any longer. Your mother regrets enormously the rows and difficulties of the past, is anxious to make amends, and very much wants to resume a normal motherly relationship with all her children and to be able to see them and their families from time to time. … Moreover, Anna, who is the sweetest little girl aged only 4 years, is left in a particularly isolated position, none of which is her own making. Even if it is just for her sake something must be done. Imagine if one of your children were placed in her position! Poor Lucy who, I can assure you, has considerable generosity of spirit, is treated as an outcast and NOT as a sister. What a sorry state of affairs. The problem will not go away of its own. Apart from being very hurtful to your mother, and to me, the effects on future generations will be considerable. Reconciliation is the only possible course of action and I am looking to you all to do something about it… To conclude, I am asking you all to examine your consciences and seek a way to repair the unhappiness of the past. This is my dearest wish.”
“I asked, but did not make it a condition, that some form of UK settlement should be incorporated into the distribution process, so as to prevent Lucy from spending all the proceeds of any property sales she may make.”
“I have just heard from Lucy. The new plan is to sell Hurlingham, Thatch Cottage and Lyon and buy a house in Oxted, so that she will be near friends where she grew up and so that Anna can attend her old school. A house is available at£280,000 and she reckons the three mentioned above would raise£600,000 .”
“Your mother rang me yesterday evening and extracted a promise that we would, for the next year, or anyway until you can sell Hurlingham, pay you£6,000 per month from the remainder of the fund which, at 29th September, had a value of only£641,000 , excluding Meribel, as I reminded myself this morning.£6,000 a month is£72,000 a year, which is 11.2% of the fund. That is far too high and would consume the whole fund in a little over ten years unless remarkable capital gains are made in the meantime. Also, once you have returned to the UK we can only remit genuine income, which at the rate of 11% would be hard to find and risky as well. Your problems worry me and keep me awake at nights. If only you had listened to advice in the first place the Webbs Road disaster could have been avoided. Also the performance of the Trust Fund has been quite extraordinary. The Thornton shares multiplied about 10 times between 1985 and 1991 otherwise you would have been in these difficulties a lot earlier. Such gains are very unlikely in the future. … First and foremost, I have to be unkind in order to be kind. There has been such reckless expenditure over the past twelve years – Webbs Road – cars – Thatch Cottage – telephone bills – unpaid tax – Meribel – that it really would not be in your long term interest to bail you out again. You have been extraordinarily generously treated by the Trustees of the Settlement (on my advice) and one has to call a halt somewhere. As you well know, you three children received half the proceeds of my sale of GT Management, and the value of that was further increased by an investment in Thornton & Co. If we go on spending more than we have like this none of us will have anything left. Of course, if you were left absolutely on your uppers – bankrupt so to speak – help would be forthcoming, but it could not be on the scale you have had in the past. My father used to speak about ‘cutting your coat to match your cloth’ – and I am afraid this is as true today as it was in his lifetime. Secondly – why should you get special treatment over and above Mary and Henry? Mary has had her fair share of bad luck and Henry has worked extremely hard to get where he has. Finally, just at this moment I would find it extremely difficult to lay my hands quickly on£290,000 , just like that. My affairs are quite carefully managed, and I have lots of other people to consider. … You will by April have had nearly two-thirds of your settlement handed over to you, and I cannot think that anybody can deliver a return higher than 5% on the remainder of the Fund while preserving its value. That is£32,000 a year which will be subject to tax – approximately£370 a week net if tax remains at 40% - a somewhat doubtful proposition given the likelihood of a Labour Government soon. … I am sure there will be plenty of houses on offer after next July, possibly cheaper and nicer than the one that has currently caught your eye. I know this is very disappointing and I do sympathise, but we have come to the end of the road in terms of further help from the settlement. Anna’s and your longer term interests make it imperative to preserve what remains of the fund. What on earth would you do if it all disappeared? … I want to conclude by giving you lots of credit for what you have achieved by going to live in France. The turn around in your fortunes I think will be seen to have dated from that move, which cannot have been easy for you. So you deserve to be congratulated on that. To continue the process you must put out of your head extravagant schemes like this new house and proceed in an orderly manner to make better use of your resources, which are still considerable…”
“I write in relation to my father’s Settlement, dated14 September 1971 , and in relation to the resolution of the Trustees made on25 February 1985 . I should be grateful if the Trustees would exercise their discretion and make a total capital distribution to me of£1,570,246.13 , which is to comprise of (1) capitalisation of the loan account balance due by me of£1,230,246.13 as at30 November 1995 and (2) a physical payment to me of£340,000.00 . In consideration of the Trustees making this distribution to me, I hereby confirm that I shall make no further request for capital from the Settlement and that I shall only be entitled to receive future distributions of income thereafter.”
“Lucy will have told you that a very substantial distribution was made to her so that she could complete the purchase of the house in Oxted. In fact, there is now very little money left in the settlement and she now owns outright Hurlingham, Webb’s Road, Oxted, Lyons and Thatch Cottage subject, of course, to the various mortgages that she has arranged on these properties.”
“I have arranged for you to receive a cheque for£30,000 to arrive shortly. I hope this will help your bank balance accordingly. As we are coming back from April 5th this is the last opportunity to send you money without hideous taxation consequences.”
“I agree that Meribel and Webbs Road should be sold but should be properly invested. I am horrified by the idea of£100,000 loan from Virgin. How on earth would she be able to meet the interest charge let alone repay the capital?”
“It was lovely to see you yesterday… I enclose a form for Gabriel which I think you should complete and send in. They seem to be prepared to accept payment in arrears. I am sorry if Susie wasn’t quite on form, but it’s best if I tell you why. Her complaint is that we only really see you when you need something, and sure enough Gabriel’s school bill was due for payment. Nevertheless I think that is a little unfair but I know she is also concerned at the disparity between what we pay for you and what we pay for Henry and family, and Mary. She has a point because in the last few years I have re-done a house (which was not used but the sale of it cost me about£50,000 !) and provided you with three cars and several largish cheques on top. Although I have some capital (and I suppose enough of it given the high inflation with which we live – much higher than the official figures) I am now retired and constantly dipping into it, and to run it down for your benefit is to be unfair to Henry and Mary when I have gone. As Susie points out the three of you all started with the same; and the others have managed their affairs so that they have not needed any help. Susie was particularly upset by the latest BMW, which is why she didn’t want to see it. … I consulted with Henry and put an upper limit of£15,000 but both Susie and I rather hoped that the upper limit was not reached at once. You could have got a jolly good Toyota or other second-hand car for much less. I have to confess I was a bit upset myself that all the£15,000 disappeared in one fell swoop as if it were a mere nothing…”
“…Thank you for giving Gabriel all the opportunities you do and for helping me out. I really appreciate it. … P.S. Let me know if on reflection you do want me to repay for the uniform in stages. Very happy to.”
“I have been so impressed at the way you have brought up Anna & Gabriel and am so proud of all three of you because I know life has not been easy for you. It is great to think that G now has the chance to enjoy what I enjoyed all those years ago at Stowe. I fear I get a bit of criticism for paying you and your family more than the others. I have tried so hard with Mary, but not with success, and H and N’s children have everything that comes with happy and successful parents. H has done very well in life but I often wonder how he and N would have coped if they had had the financial difficulties in the early days that Mum and I had. Her tiny salary as a secretary was really important until she had to stop work for Mary’s arrival we relied on it. But I have had a lot of luck in my life – and had to work very hard to make the best of things – perhaps too hard for I should have been a more attentive father – rather as H is; and it does not seem to have spoilt his business career! Anyway more than enough about me. This is to say I love you and really appreciate your love in return.”
“Worried about daughter, whose husband has walked out after she shouted at him. She gets into frenzies against everyone – has alienated her mother and brother.”
“Memory deteriorating, especially figures … Complains all day long and Susie fed up with him.”
“Short term memory drives Susie nuts.”
“Confidence down. Fear of being left. Fear of flying to Cuba.”
“Fall down stairs at home (8) and knocked head on bannisters, found by wife on floor with blood from head injury. Frequent falls – 6-7 in last two years. No warning of fall but felt himself go. Had just bent down to pick up glass of water and stood up and he tells me he has suffered with postural symptoms – there was no significant postural drop in A&E. No headache, chest pain, SOB or weakness preceding fall. Wife saw him immediately after fall, slightly dazed initially but talking and no LOC. No vomiting, no seizure, no amnesia.”
“Has irregular heartbeat – consults Dr. Paul Oldershaw General decline – friends noticing and commenting on general fragility and rapid ageing (led to this visit) Complains frequently ‘not feeling well’ More frequently experiencing feelings of dizziness (suffers vertigo) Exceeding poor balance – several falls Excessive swelling of ankles – DVT in 1987 – some days unable to get shoes on Weak knees / legs but usually focussed on balance problem Weight loss over last year (13 to under 12 stone) and muscle wasting away Always tired, eyes drooping (says he is unable to see properly at times) Severe anxiety / overwhelmed by things which affects his thinking and mind ? Is it normal ‘ageing’ – seems much more rapid than contemporaries ? Lacking something (blood tests) ? Effect of combination of pills ? diuretics achieving anything ? Memory / anxiety”
“By nature, he is a rather anxious and panicky individual, he has had no headaches, his vision has deteriorated such that he has minimised his driving recently and his wife tries to do all the driving. He used to be in the investment business but still enjoys reading the Financial Times. … His friends have noticed that his smiling has decreased and that he does not laugh or enjoy social conversation any more and he is a member of three London clubs but now rarely visits them. … The MRI brain scan showed that there were age-related changes within the brain, there were some chronic ischemic changes seen in the paraventricular white matter, there was no evidence of a recent infarct or intracranial haemorrhage or a space-occupying lesion, the major intracranial arteries and dural venous sinuses were patent. The cervical medullary junction skull base, orbits and sinuses were within normal limits. … In the light of this I believe that his basic problem is the oedema from the incompetent veins in the leg and I have suggested that he has a modern-day support stocking going above his knee. … Other than that, I have spoken to both him and his wife and reassured them on the results of these investigations.”
“His personality has not changed. His memory has declined and this appears according to my interpretation of the wife’s story more to do with normal ageing [than] anything else. He continues to run his affairs successfully and the wife has noticed [nothing] of any concern in this regard. They are clearly devoted to each other.”
“He then presumably had a toxic encephalopathy as when he came into hospital he was hallucinating and extremely confused.”
“However, the situation seems to have deteriorated with further immobility, worsening hallucinations giving rise to very vivid visual phenomenology such that there were people in the room and as a consequence he tried to get from the basement and his microenvironment to another room to sleep. Since his admission on Tuesday the situation has continued to deteriorate with drowsiness, confusion, hallucinations and intermittent jerking in his limbs some of which sound myoclonic. I could not elicit a history of anything that suggested a partial seizure disorder although it was difficult to tell from the history. ... On examination there was considerable rigidity, possibly even some stiffness. He had his eyes closed and required assistance to open them. His horizontal eye movements were abnormal. He was reluctant to move his eyes in a vertical plane. His speech was indistinct but he was able to answer some simple questions. He was able to move his four limbs. The plantars were probably extensor. There were some myoclonic jerks but no wasting or fasciculations. The history suggests that he does presumably have some degenerative cerebral process. This would be odd for Alzheimer’s disease but cortical Lewy body disease or perhaps progressive supranuclear palsy would be a possible option. One would also have to consider a prion disorder.”
“His mood is satisfactory, his cognitive symptoms are at bay. His son is keen for him to continue as a Trustee to a number of work related organisations. I have indicated that it is probably better for him to stand down from these duties. The Neuropsychometric profile that we have performed certainly shows that there are some cognitive difficulties and whilst these are under control they would really preclude any formal work related activity. That is not to say that we do not want him to be active and involved in things and the fact [is] that he certainly does have the capacity to make decisions for himself at the current time but there are times when he is confused and I think it would be very difficult to hold such a role.”
“He is certainly generally remarkably better than he was during his admission last year when you made the diagnosis of Lewy Body disease and he appeared to be generally deteriorating. Since that time he had a short time in nursing care but is now back home and being looked after by his wife. He had an admission to the Lister Hospital with an aspiration pneumonia in April this year and ended up in intensive care but once again seemed to bounce back and has made a good recovery. He does, however, now have a PEG in place.”
“Spoke with Lucy (Mr Thornton’s daughter) she is concerned that her father is not with dementia or Alzheimer’s but had a mercury poisoning. Asked to speak with consultant, in order to ask him to request some appropriate tests.”
“Patient was distressed on arrival this morning due to the Police visiting him on 28/3/12 night. Patient was listened to and then as per patient’s wishes I helped him phone his wife, his wife was very angry about the visit. The Police visited as they were told by one of his daughters that the wife Susie was attempting to choke / poison him. Mr Thornton has informed everyone this is not true and has expressed wishes not to see his daughters. … Patient appeared exhausted today following the stress of last night’s incidents.”
“Your GP Dr Coyne has contacted Social Services regarding the stress that this has caused.”
“The allegations that were made have been investigated thoroughly with the support of District Nurses, Community Dietician and other professionals, as well as speaking directly to your grandfather. It has been found that the allegations were unsubstantiated, therefore no further action will be taken by Social Services at this present time. Social Services have written to your grandfather and step-grandmother recommending and encouraging that as a family, contact and an open, on-going dialogue is maintained between yourselves about Mr Thornton’s health and well-being. A family meeting was suggested to Mrs Thornton to try and mediate the difficult family dynamics, as opposed to going through Social Services, however this was not taken up.”
“... I really don’t know what has got into you the last few months. You have thoroughly upset my Susie, who used to be so fond of you, with the hurtful things you have said about her, and the way we feel you have twisted the truth from time to time to put her in a bad light. This has had the effect of preventing us from coming to see you. Perhaps you don’t mind any more, but I do! We are very fond of your children and would have liked to have come to your reunion party earlier this month. As it is the things you wrote, and the hysterical way you went at me over the telephone after our last visit made it impossible. I can assure you this makes me infinitely sad, the more so since none of us is getting any younger and these should be the years when Grandparents and Grandchildren most enjoy each other and get the best from each other. It’s no good pretending that Susie and I can have a normal relationship with Caroline and Georgie when they must know there is this hostility in the background. We just shall not be able to see them as much as we would like. As for Charlotte, she looks as if she is going to grow up without the benefit of any Grandparents, which I suspect she will regret just as much as you regretted that you couldn’t see your Granny Gleeson towards the end of her life because of the problems between you and your mother ... Susie Thornton. If you want to see much of me during the rest of my life – and perhaps you don’t – you must make it up with Susie. She is your step mother, but more importantly, she is my wife, something you actively encouraged back in 1989, and, loving her as I do, that is a prerequisite for you and me to get back to a proper father/daughter relationship. The way in which you have chosen to treat her of recent years has bitten very deep for she is a sensitive and warm hearted person who comes from a background where these sort of things are unthinkable. At no time has she ever wished you anything but joy and happiness, as witness the time when I brought you and Andy and Charlotte back for the night after some crisis, and I am sure that holds for the future. But you must apologise for your strange behaviour of recent months, and be prepared for a lecture in reply, because you have upset us both a lot recently. I can assure you she is exactly the same loving person I married in 1989 and only wishes for everybody to be happy. I am sorry if this is a tough letter for you to receive. Unfortunately it is very necessary for me to write it. Susie and I will look forward to hearing from you.”
“Mary, it just isn’t any good being really horrible to people and then, just because a month or two has gone by thinking that all is forgotten. When Susie and I married you were a great help and good fun and I know Susie was delighted to have such a lovely bubbly stepdaughter. On your second trip to Bermuda we noticed a great change had come over you. You seemed to us to be a misery all of a sudden. Since then you have become more and more difficult and often rude to Susie (often totally ignoring her and writing nasty things about her in your letters to me which are not true), culminating in that awful telephone call you made after our trip to see you in Ireland from which, frankly, I am still trying to recover. You really have got to face up to things, and stop this kind of behaviour. You must apologise, and mean it, before you can expect us to resume happy relations without strain.”
“Mary, in recent letters I have mentioned how much you have upset Susie – and therefore me – in recent years. What all this is about only you know. When Susie and I married you were a great ally and perfect step daughter. Susie hasn’t changed. She is still the same warm loving person, and she has made me very happy. I know she is not a country person particularly nor does she like boats that much. … But as I say Susie makes me very happy and the last ten years have been as happy as any I can remember since I was a child. It hurts me very much when you make Susie unhappy – in being unkind and unwelcoming to her you are effectively being those things to me as well. If you continue I am afraid we shan’t be seeing you very much, which will be very sad for me but only what you should expect. A lot of damage has been done, and you must not expect to be able to turn the clock back straight away. It’s really up to you. Susie is a wonderful person and I love her very much, so the choice for the future is very much yours. …”
“Most of all that is my fault – presents crackers and cheques! Very sorry.”
“I have decided to pay the ‘extras’ myself as this is quite a tight deadline before you get a penalty charge for late payment – and its therefore better paid by return. I enclose a cheque for£600 for you to spend how you wish. Susie is not in favour of continued subsidies and it is unfair on Henry (with two still at school and two already paid for without a penny of help) but what was lost in the various disasters cannot be replaced and both Gabriel and Anna should not be disadvantaged by past errors.”
“I enclose a cheque for£7,000 to cover the teeth and I hope you can manage any ‘extras’ there may be by yourself. Susie is aware of it and reluctantly agrees – a letter of appreciation might help. I continue to be worried by your finances, and hope you will manage when I have gone.”
“I have brought up my children to understand family values and to respect you both, unreservedly. I have used my financial resources to give both my children a decent life, and I have drained myself of these resources in the process so that my children could receive the best that I could provide for them. I have been a single parent and unfortunately Anna’s father took advantage of my situation. The only family support I have had was from both of you and my mother. The rest are only ghosts who fleetingly send greetings and token meaningless acknowledgements of one’s existence. It has taken me years to come to terms with the fact that people who denigrate other people, and who openly taunt or ignore the existence of others, or who lie and even believe their own lies, are not worth knowing. My sister has caused her own mental illness and breakdowns with all her manipulative lies. She is very plausible and cunning, and throughout her life her destructive behaviour and taunts have caused upsets and divisions within the entire family. As to the trunks of letters and your personal papers that Mary is holding, these will become her next weapon. I was appalled to hear the comments that she made and to see her relentless pattern of rude and antagonistic behaviour towards Susie. As to my brother, he sits upon Capital Hill with BDT as a flagship to the Thornton name. In his private life there is no room for anyone else except his own family. So that’s it. I am very lucky to have a family and I appreciate all your support, help and understanding. Thank you again.”
“I hope you realise that I am always there for you just as you have both been for me.”
“…I had a long talk with a consultant on Sunday evening and they are still somewhat puzzled as to the exact diagnosis, apart from the fact that there is cerebral degeneration. We can only watch how he progresses with the medication and what level of recovery he makes over time, both physically and mentally.”
“Of course I am compassionate and understanding about your wish to see your father but are you being understanding about his wellbeing? You and M have seen him mostly when he is more aware and calm (thankfully for your sakes) but the reality is usually quite different. I have tried my best to explain 4 people visiting is TOO much for him – believe me – and leaves him tired and exhausted, and he finds it confusing with so many. He has even told me so. Visits need to be shorter, and only one or occasionally two people. Even though you and M think you are sitting there quietly and not talking much, he is aware and it is a huge strain for him. Other people all realise and see this why don’t you and M. Of course he is happy to know you visit but only wants (and needs) a short time. It isn’t the last time and I would always let you know if there it seemed that way. The nurse you saw the other day was an agency nurse for the day and not really familiar with his condition like the permanent nurses. Also I do not understand why you all remained when the physiotherapist was there. I am sure he got no benefit in those circumstances. Lucy, of course you must see him and I have no issue with any of you visiting. On the whole you have been co-operative and supportive, but because M (and sometimes you) just turn up whenever and do not arrange visits through me I have had to take the action I mentioned. I do mean it, in HIS best interest. The nurses have a daily list of any pre-arranged visits through me and otherwise they will not be admitted. Everyone agrees this is the best arrangement and are more than happy about it. So please, arrange your visits and make them shorter. There is something I do take issue with – during the visit on Thurs someone said something concerning the family which left him very troubled and anguished the following morning and later in the day. It is shameful to make him suffer anymore than he has by reminding him in some way of past family discord. Issues relating to you all, and your mother – in the past and now – should be dealt with amongst yourselves and not involve him. The past is irreversible and it is a bit late to start trying to play happy families now. Of course he is, I know, so pleased you met up with H and Alice and that you and M speak, but leave it at that. It is shameful when he is so vulnerable that he is reminded of the unhappiness in the past. I don’t know what triggered this but found it deeply distressing that he was so troubled by it.”
“Mary: You do love me but you’re not allowed to tell me that you love me Richard: Yes Mary: Oh gosh Dad, that does make me sad Richard: It makes me very very sad Mary: Can you ask Gail to write a note or something saying that you do love me, that I can have, close to me if you can’t tell me that you love me? Richard: I… I don’t think I can trust Gail Mary: You can’t trust Gail? Who can you trust? Richard: Nobody really Mary: Well you can trust me Dad Richard: Yes, but… anyway it’s a sad day Mary: Oh it is a sad day and it was so sad that Hector and Georgina were wanting to come and see you on Sunday and they had to stay outside on the… in the porch, in the… outside your front door Richard: That was disgraceful, I had no idea they were there Mary: They were and they weren’t allowed in, and, and it seems so sad because you were upstairs on your own and it looked as if Will and Susie were going to have their lunch downstairs, or do they bring their lunch up on a tray? Richard: I don’t get any lunch, I don’t get any food … Mary: Well thank you. Is there anything else you want to explain? Richard: No, I can’t… its, it’s a form of… nervous breakdown Mary: Who’s having a nervous breakdown? Richard: Susie … Richard: Well I don’t know what where to turn for help nobody I can trust Mary: Nobody you can trust? Richard: Well nobody, nobody who’s is not going to inflame things. If you said anything about it it much worse Mary: Hmm, well who comes to wash you in the mornings? Richard: It’s a poor position because if she were to execute any of the threats of abandoning me, I don’t think I could cope. I’d die. Mary: She’s threatening to abandon you? Richard: Well … Richard: I took the opportunity because she’s out Mary: Well thank you for telling me, do you know where she has gone? Richard: What? Mary: Do you know where she’s gone? Richard: No I don’t. But if I get turned out now I’ll have no money, no cheque book, no nothing, I can’t, I’m in a very poor position… Very poor position Mary: Who says you’ll have no cheque book? Richard: I don’t know where they are! Mary: You don’t know here your cheque books are? Richard: No Mary: Well where’s your bank statement? Richard: I haven’t got them anymore Mary: You haven’t got it anymore?! Richard: Well, if, I was away for, you know hospital for about nine months Mary: Hmm Richard: And all that was taken over … Richard: For all I know she may be hiding behind the door and listening to all of this and there will be a tremendous blow up and I’ll probably get murdered Mary: You’ll get murdered?! Richard: Well I don’t know… after this call Mary: She doesn’t lash out at you does she Dad? Richard: What? Mary: She doesn’t hit you? Richard: No, no, anyway, there we are Mary, I’m sorry. I just wanted to explain”
“Mary: Hi Susie I’m in London taking Charlotte onto the station not the station. Susan: Well I’m sorry you can’t come in Mary: Well it’s really important to me to see Dad Susan: No I’m sorry if you don’t all come at once he’s not available at the moment and you didn’t ring so sorry Mary: Well you always say no even when we ring Susan: We don’t Mary: [unclear] it will make any difference Susan: Well it does make a difference Mary: It’s really important to me that I see Susan: Well I’m sorry you can come in but the others can’t … Mary: Why can’t we just say hello to our father? Susan: Because you can’t all go into our room I’m sorry we don’t have visitors in there. Mary: Well… why is he in the room? Susan: Because he’s on his feed and he’s in between [carers?] … Susan: No I’m sorry it’s… if you hadn’t got the decency to call up and make an appointment Mary: Susie, it doesn’t make any difference Susan: It does Mary: [If?] we call you don’t let us see him Susan: I do so I don’t stop you Mary: You do Susie Susan: You called once and he said to come this week Georgina: [unclear] Grandfather [unclear] Mary: Because you don’t… Susan: You don’t speak to me like that. You’re disgusting Georgina. Everybody from all our carers, the nurses, the professional people, our church, our friends all of them think they’re bad enough that they think that what you’ve done is even more disgusting. Mary: It’s really important for me that I’m able to visit my father with my sister and my daughter. Susan: No sorry you can’t. Mary: It’s really important Susan: Well I’m sorry you can’t. Mary: [unclear] Susan: No. You can’t all go into our bedroom. Georgina: Well perhaps we can talk to him from outside the door. Susan: No… no… no you can ring up and make an appointment and if you refuse to do that you can’t see him. I’m sorry. You’ve been told that. You’ve been asked… you’re the only people who haven’t got the good manners to observe that. Even Henry rings before he comes and arranges an appointment but no, it’s not good enough for you. Mary: Well… Susan: Well I’m sorry. Mary: It’s really important for me to be able to see my father today. Susan: Well you can come in but the others can’t. So take your choice. Mary: Well… it’s really important for all of us to be together. Susan: Well, sorry. Mary: Susie, come on please. … Susan: No, I’ve already said where he is. Did you not hear what I said? Could I ask you. Do you have a pint of decency to do and [unclear] what I asked you to do? Mary: Well it’s really important [unclear] Susan: No you answer me before you go up. Mary: Susie, I don’t try phoning you anymore. Susan: Don’t… Mary: Because you keep putting the phone down on me. Susan: I do not. Well, only when you’re being silly. … Susan: To say hello and whatever. No you listen to me first. You’ve got no manners, no courtesy, no respect and until you show that you won’t be welcome here. And if they just turn up like that then I don’t want you to go up there and tell him they’re outside because that is going to make him distressed and I will not have it. Ok? … Susan: Mary… showing no respect to your father’s [illness?] and I don’t want you coming here and telling him that you [unclear] about your illness because he doesn’t need that worry. [unclear] have no idea what’s wrong [unclear], you show no respect, you show no respect to me and that’s the way you’ll be treated [unclear]… … Mary: Well that’s nice. Well Dad I wanted to visit you with Georgina and with Lucy Richard: Yeah Mary: Um Richard: And where are they? Mary: Well… they’re outside your front door. Susan: Oh you are a [unclear] Mary: I don’t lie, I’m sorry Susan: No but you didn’t have to bring that up. I asked you not to. Mary: But it’s really important for me to tell Dad that that’s what we wanted to do. Susan: Well if you want to do that you have to make arrangements but you refuse to do it so that’s how it is. Darling why [unclear] … Susan: So you want to see your father? Have a nice visit and make him happy and talk about something nice! Mary: But it’s… it’s… Susan: Can I not expect that from you? Mary: It’s very important for me to just explain that when Dad calls us what he says to us sometimes is really concerning Susan: Well if you’re so stupid you don’t realise he’s got a serious illness and he forgets a lot of things. He called you once and said he was left alone so what do you do? You stupid girl, go off to the social services and complain. I went to the dentist once and he misunderstood the whole thing. One visit to the dentist and he told you because he was feeling a bit confused that I’m never there and so you go off to the social workers, you distressed him, you distressed me… … Mary: Could I just ask you if I could just speak without being interrupted then I can say it quickly and that would be good for all of us I think. Um sometimes, Dad, when you have telephoned it’s been of concern to us what you say and um we love you, we’re your family, what we hear you say is… Susan: You love him? Mary: …is of grave concern. Susan: How could you? No sorry I will not let you say such a thing… Mary: And… Susan: …when you do what you’ve done to him… Richard: Hmmm Susan: Seven times you’ve all been to the social services, darling, and police… police into the hospital Mary: And then… Susan: Can you tell me why you sent police to the hospital in the middle of the night? Richard: [unclear] … Susan: Look, if you… no why don’t you just start from the beginning. If you had any inkling of his illness you would understand that there are times when he gets confused and forgetful and he has a memory lapse, do you understand that? Did you know about that? Mary: Well… Susan: So therefore, you have to be a little bit more grown up and mature and not take everything he says in a confused lapsed… lapsed memory moment and take it as gospel first of all and secondly, it’s not as our breeding to go running to social services. … Susan: If you think your father said those things and meant them then you don’t really know your father at all … you really don’t Mary: Well, thank you for putting me straight Susie because obviously you can imagine that that sort of phone call… Susan: Well, I don’t care – you don’t know what all of you have put us through Richard: Oh darling… Susan: You know… being ill … [answers phone]… hello? sorry? Yes Mary: Have you had many visitors Dad? Richard: Have I had what? Mary: Visitors? Have you had any visitors? Richard: Well… I’ve got friends… yes Mary: Who comes to visit you? Richard: Yes actually I’ve had a lot Mary: Oh good Richard: When I think about it Mary: I gather Murray wanted to pop in Richard: Yes he rang it just wasn’t convenient. I can’t remember why… I had to put him off. It was very kind of him to ring. Mary: Hmmm… he was a little bit concerned that you didn’t let him come in but anyway Susan: Well for your information I wasn’t even here when Richard decided himself so he must have been tired… you know some days he sleeps and some days he doesn’t want to do anything… you have to understand all of those things and that’s why it’s important that everything is kept to a routine more or less and also the timing and also arranged because some days are good and some days are not”
“Lucy: Mary is in the car and she would love to see you if you would like to see her Richard: Can’t she come in? Lucy: Well… Susan: No, she can’t Lucy: Only if I ask you, I’m asking if you’d like to, come, if she could come? Susan: No, do you think, you know just like a criminal… Lucy: Excuse me I’m… Susan: No. Excuse me Lucy: Hang on I’ll just… Susan: Excuse me Lucy, I’m sorry… [unclear] Susan: Excuse me Lucy, you know what, Richard and I have been married for a very long time, no listen to me would you, and by showing me some, well, stop talking about me Lucy: I’m not Susan: By showing me such lack of respect you dishonour your father and I have said to Mary if she wants to come to see her father… Lucy: Daddy I will come and see you another time okay, I’m not going to leave Mary… exactly, I’m not going to leave her sitting in the car so I’m… Susan: Well you could have said you had her in the car and maybe she could have come, but now she can’t because you’ve been sneaky and deceitful Lucy: Why are you being so ridiculous Susan? Come on, really? Daddy says he wants to see her… … Susan: No no Richard, I am not going to Richard: I only want to see my eldest daughter, please. Susan: No, no darling I’m sorry they’re just, disobedient little children Lucy: He’s in… He’s in charge of who he wants to see Susan: Don’t you tell me what… Lucy: Well you know that… Susan: happens in my home… okay, right, if you can’t, you are deceitful because you didn’t say that Lucy: But if I don’t want to talk to you about it I won’t Susan: Well I’m talking to you, you show me respect or you don’t come to this house Lucy: Stop shouting… Susan: Well don’t talk about me Lucy: For goodness sake Susie Susan: Go out please, leave… you can’t, you’re deceitful and underhanded Richard: I’d like to see Mary Susan: I’m sorry but she purposefully did this and Lucy deceitfully did it, she did not ask if she could bring Mary and Mary has not got the decency to ring and I am telling you Lucy: Excuse me… Susan: This is how it is Lucy: I’m sorry Susie… Susan: Excuse me, this is how… Lucy: I’m not talking to you about it I’m talking to Dad Susan: Well you’re not talking to him because this is my house too… Richard: Oh shut up Susie Susan: Darling, don’t you dare speak to me like that because your disobedient children Lucy: Susie… Susan: Everybody knows how rude you are Lucy: I haven’t been rude have I Valdemar? Susan: Don’t speak to people like that Lucy: Well it’s obvious I haven’t, all I have done is Susan: You’re so… Lucy: And I’ll come another time and I can’t stay in this sort of atmosphere Susan: Well I can’t take it… Richard: [mumbling] Lucy: Well why don’t you leave and go into a different room and let… Susan: Because you are deceitful and I am not allowing it. Richard: Could you go and get Mary? Lucy: Well Dad if you give me your phone I will ring her Richard: I haven’t got a phone Lucy: Well why don’t you have your phone? Richard: I don’t have a phone Unknown female: You do so doesn’t he Valdemar Valdemar: Yes, you dropped it Richard: No but I don’t know… Susan: Darling, we are not, they are being deceitful and underhand and we have talked about it before Richard: I don’t have a mobile phone.. Susan: We’ve talked about it before and we’re not having it. She’s got… she’s like a criminal, who thinks she is above the law Lucy: For goodness sake Susie, I’m just saying if I can’t, if she’s not going to be allowed to come in, then I’ll come another time … Valdemar: I’m taking care of Richard, personal care Susan: And this is not in his interest Richard: I’m going to go out… Lucy: [unclear] Dad come out with us, and we can have a walk and you can see her by the car… that’s the only option left Susan: You’re a selfish little piece of creature aren’t you. Richard, we’ve talked about this before darling and we are not having her dictating it, she cannot ring up or Lucy hasn’t got the courtesy when she rang up before to say Mary was with her then sorry you’re not, playing this game Lucy: No, Susie Susan: And you were… Lucy: Susie Susan: Showing your father no respect Lucy: Shh Susan: Don’t you shh me!! Lucy: Don’t you hit me! Susan: Well don’t you shh me!! Lucy: don’t you hit me! Dad, come on we’re going upstairs Richard: No we’re not Susan: You’re making… Richard: For once I am in charge Susan: No you’re not darling Richard: I would like Mary to come in… I really want her to come in, she’s been very ill Susan: She’s not very ill, and there are people a lot worse than that, they never think about you, and your care. Lucy: Excuse me, Georgie, actually, Mary told me, has already told you that we want to see Dad together Susan: Yes, and I said if the mother rings up and asks Lucy: But Susie, Mary doesn’t want you shouting at her and abusing her and I can understand why Susan: But I’m not shouting abuse… Lucy: So I’m asking Dad directly does he want to see his daughter and he said yes Richard: I’d like to see them Lucy: Exactly Dad, it’s not a game to you, it’s just we want to see our Dad and that’s the end of it, no more, no less Susan: No, I’m sorry you see him when you ring up and that’s it. Richard: I want to see… it’s very embarrassing Lucy: because I am really worried about you Susan: Darling, could you please tell your daughter to leave, she’s showing us disrespect Lucy: I’m not showing you disrespect, I’m really concerned Susan: You dishonour your father by… Lucy: I’m not going to shout because you’re shouting at everybody and I’m not going to get drawn into it Richard: Well… I’ll come out … Susan: No, you are not going to do it Lucy so you’re wasting your time because he’s going up for his feed in a minute and you are a deceitful, like, like two disobedient children… Richard: Oh shut up Susie Susan: Darling don’t you speak to me, this is what happens Lucy: Don’t… Richard: Shut up Lucy: Don’t insult his children at all time like that Susie Susan: Well you deserve it Lucy: Yes… Susan: Everybody knows what you’re like Lucy: It has nothing to do with you Susan: Oh sorry it is Lucy: No, you don’t have the right to keep abusing us like this Richard: I do, because you don’t behave properly Lucy: You don’t have the right to keep abusing us like this Richard: Oh will you stop Susie Susan: Darling, don’t tell me to stop. They have done nothing but cause you pain all their life. They’ve made messes with their lives, they know nothing about anything… They don’t know anything about relationships and marriage… I don’t care… … Richard: I’ll go out and see Mary Susan: You will not darling Richard: I will, you can’t stop me Susan: I can Richard: You can’t stop me, I’m, I… depends whether I can get up, could you help me Susan: You have to go up for your feed! Richard: I want to be taken out to see my daughter Susan: You’re not going out at this time of night! That shows you how self-absorbed you are, you don’t think about your father, you just think about yourselves Richard: I can go out for a minute Susan: You can’t go outside darling. I’m just fed to the back teeth of your daughters they’re like two disobedient children who need a good spanking, which they should have had all their lives… … Richard: I can’t get up… Susan: He’s an ill man and Vlademar and I take care of him and you are not going to do it Richard: I want to be helped up …”
“7. There is good reason for the requirement that one must have “the strongest evidence” to the effect that a Will has not been executed in accordance with section 9 when, as in this case, it appears from the face of the Will that it has been properly executed in all such respects and where there is no suggestion but that the contents of the Will represented the testator’s intention. Where a Will, on its face, has been executed in accordance with the section 9, and where there is no reason to doubt that it represented completely the wishes of the testator, there are two reasons, one practical and one of principle, why the court should be slow, on the basis of extraneous evidence, to hold that the Will was not properly executed. 8. The practical reason is that oral testimony as to the way in which a document was executed many years ago is not likely to be inherently particularly reliable on, one suspects, most occasions. As anyone who has been involved in contested factual disputes will know, people can, entirely honestly and doing their very best, completely misremember or wholly forget facts and events that took place not very long ago, and the longer ago something may have taken place the less accurate their recollection is likely to be. Wills often are executed many years before they come into their own. 9. Furthermore, when one is dealing with the recollection of witnesses to a Will, one is, as my Lord, Mummery LJ, pointed out in argument, often, indeed normally, concerned with the evidence of persons who have no interest in the document that has been executed, and therefore to whom the signing of the Will would not, save in usual circumstances, have been of particular significance. 10. The principled reason for being reluctant to hold that a Will, properly executed on its face, representing the apparent wishes of the testator, should be set aside on extraneous evidence, is that one is thereby declining to implement the wishes of the testator following his death. That would be unfortunate, especially in a case he has taken care to ensure, as far as he can, that his wishes are given effect in a way which complies with the law.”
“I’m 100% sure that I witnessed the Will”, that “I’m 100% sure that the Will that was bound was that Will”, and that Richard did not take a copy with him when he left Withers’ offices because “that’s not our practice”
“Wills frequently give rise to feelings of disappointment or worse on the part of relatives and other would-be beneficiaries. Human nature being what it is, such people will often be able to find evidence, or to persuade themselves that evidence exists, which shows that the will did not, could not, or was unlikely to, represent the intention of the testatrix, or that the testatrix was in some way mentally affected so as to cast doubt on the will. If judges were too ready to accept such contentions, it would risk undermining what may be regarded as a fundamental principle of English law, namely that people should in general be free to leave their property as they choose, and it would run the danger of encouraging people to contest wills, which could result in many estates being diminished by substantial legal costs. Further, such disputes will almost always arise when the desires, personality and state of mind of the central character, namely the testatrix herself, cannot be examined other than in a second hand way, and where much of the useful potential second hand evidence will often be partisan, and will be unavailable or far less reliable due to the passage of time. As Scarman J put it graphically in In the Estate of Fuld, decd (No 3)[1968] P 675 , 714: “When all is dark, it is dangerous for a court to claim that it can see the light.”
“62. … if testamentary capacity — the ability to understand what is being done and its effect — is established, then it is open to the court to infer that a testator who does know what is written in the document which he signs does, in fact, understand what he is doing. And, where there is nothing to excite suspicion, the court may infer (without more) that a testator who signs a document as his will does know its contents. It would be surprising if he did not. 63. Whether those are inferences which should be drawn depends, of course, on the facts of the particular case. The fact that a beneficiary has been concerned in the instructions for, and preparation of, the will excites suspicion that the testator may not know the contents of the document which he signs — or may not know the whole of those contents. The degree of suspicion — and the evidence needed to dispel that suspicion — were considered by this Court in Fuller v Strum[2001] EWCA Civ 1879 , paragraphs [32]–[36], [73], [77],[2002] 1 WLR 1097 , 1107 C –109 A , 1122 A–C , 1122 G –1123 C. 64. Further, it may well be that where there is evidence of a failing mind — and, a fortiori , where evidence of a failing mind is coupled with the fact that the beneficiary has been concerned in the instructions for the will — the court will require more than proof that the testator knew the contents of the document which he signed. If the court is to be satisfied that the testator did know and approve the contents of his will — that is to say, that he did understand what he was doing and its effect — it may require evidence that the effect of the document was explained, that the testator did know the extent of his property and that he did comprehend and appreciate the claims on his bounty to which he ought to give effect. But that is not because the court has doubts as to the testator's capacity to make a will. It is because the court accepts that the testator was able to understand what he was doing and its effect at the time when he signed the document, but needs to be satisfied that he did, in fact, know and approve the contents — in the wider sense to which I have referred.”
“N.B. October 18 ’09. This was a corrected copy for a letter of wishes which is nearly right but still needs amending”
“There is no serious dispute about the law. The approach that I should adopt may be summarised as follows: (i) In a case of a testamentary disposition of assets, unlike a lifetime disposition, there is no presumption of undue influence; (ii) Whether undue influence has procured the execution of a will is therefore a question of fact; (iii) The burden of proving it lies on the person who asserts it. It is not enough to prove that the facts are consistent with the hypothesis of undue influence. What must be shown is that the facts are inconsistent with any other hypothesis. In the modern law this is, perhaps no more than a reminder of the high burden, even on the civil standard, that a claimant bears in proving undue influence as vitiating a testamentary disposition; (iv) In this context undue influence means influence exercised either by coercion, in the sense that the testator's will must be overborne, or by fraud; (v) Coercion is pressure that overpowers the volition without convincing the testator's judgment. It is to be distinguished from mere persuasion, appeals to ties of affection or pity for future destitution, all of which are legitimate. Pressure which causes a testator to succumb for the sake of a quiet life, if carried to an extent that overbears the testator's free judgment discretion or wishes, is enough to amount to coercion in this sense; (vi) The physical and mental strength of the testator are relevant factors in determining how much pressure is necessary in order to overbear the will. The will of a weak and ill person may be more easily overborne than that of a hale and hearty one. As was said in one case simply to talk to a weak and feeble testator may so fatigue the brain that a sick person may be induced for quietness' sake to do anything. A “drip drip” approach may be highly effective in sapping the will; (vii) There is a separate ground for avoiding a testamentary disposition on the ground of fraud. The shorthand used to refer to this species of fraud is “fraudulent calumny”
“Lewison J did not refer to the authorities which supported his summary of the legal principles. I was specifically referred to Craig v Lamoureux[1920] AC 349 and Hall v Hall (1868) LR 1 P & D 481 which plainly provide the source for some parts at least of that summary. In particular, the former of these two cases is the source of the statement that the circumstances must be “inconsistent with a contrary hypothesis”, that is, an hypothesis other than the exercise of undue influence: see[1920] AC 349 at 357. In the present case, where I have considerable evidence as to the circumstances in which the disputed will was prepared and executed, I think that it is more appropriate for me simply to ask whether the party asserting undue influence has satisfied me to the requisite standard that the will was executed as a result of undue influence. The requisite standard is proof on the balance of probabilities but as the allegation of undue influence is a serious one, the evidence required must be sufficiently cogent to persuade the court that the explanation for what has occurred is that the testator’s will has been overborne by coercion rather than there being some other explanation: see how the matter was put by Rimer J in Carapeto v Good[2002] EWHC 640 (Ch) at [124]-[125]. This last case also makes clear that a finding of undue influence can be made by a court drawing inferences from all the circumstances, even in the absence of direct evidence of undue influence: see at [126].”
“… [T]he part of his estate not left to Susie is to be held in trust for his grandchildren (with the proviso that Susie retains a life interest). In practical terms this means that the grandchildren are unlikely to receive any capital until Susie either passes away or waives her rights to her interest in the Life Interest Fund.”
“The principal provisions of the Will in relation to his grandchildren is that they are given an interest in the estate which is to be “in equal shares absolutely”
“While it is not possible for the Executors to share the detail of any letter of wishes, since they are expressly bound by my father’s instruction that it be confidential, I can confirm that there is nothing of note in the letter of wishes which conflicts with clause 12.1 mentioned above.”