Recent case law

Caudle –v- Eldine Law Limited [2009] 2 All ER 1020

The Deceased died intestate.  She had a son from a previous marriage but was divorced from the father of the son.  Pursuant to the intestacy rules, the deceased’s son, a minor, was the sole beneficiary of her estate.

Prior to her death, the Deceased had engaged the legal services of the Defendant company and owed them legal fees in the sum £1,633.43.  At the date of her death, the Defendant company had obtained judgment in respect of that debt.

The Deceased’s parents delivered papers relating to the Deceased’s financial affairs as they wished a solicitor at the Defendant company to act for them in obtaining letters of administration.  The Defendant company considered it had a lien over the documentation as a result of the unpaid debt.  The son’s father (the “Claimant”) brought proceedings against the Defendant company for a declaration that they had no lien over the documents and for an order that the Defendant company deliver up the documents.  The County Court Judge made the declaration that the Defendant company had no lien over the documents but refused the order and ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant company’s costs assessed at £2,700.

The Claimant appealed and the following issues arose:

1. Did the Defendant company have a lien over the documents?
2. Who is entitled to apply for a grant of letters of administration?
3. Is the person entitled to the grant of letters of administration also entitled to take legal action to enforce that right?

Held

1. The Defendant company did not have a lien over the documents or personal possessions of the Deceased.
2. The Deceased died intestate and her only son became the sole beneficiary.  Under normal circumstances he would be entitled to apply for letters of administration but was under the age of 18 years.  The persons entitled to apply for letters of administration are those set out in the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987.  The Claimant, as a person with parental responsibility, was entitled to apply.  However, because the son is under the age of 18 years, at least two administrators will be needed.  It was held that the Claimant was not the only person entitled to apply for letters of administration.  The Deceased’s parents were also entitled to apply.  However, under the 1987 rules the son’s Claimant’s entitlement to a grant had priority over the entitlement of the Deceased’s parents.
3. It was held that in the vast majority of cases, the person entitled to a grant will in fact obtain possession of property of the Deceased.  However, the powers of an administrator to preserve and protect the deceased’s estate before a grant were limited to essential actions.  Therefore, a person entitled to grant of letters of administration will only have an immediate right to possession of personal property formally owned by the deceased if it was necessary to safeguard the estate and was also entitled to take legal action to enforce that right.  In this case, the Claimant did not need the documentation to apply for a grant and copies of the documents were obtainable from other sources.
4. The Court dismissed the appeal as the claimant did not need to take possession to safeguard the estate.