On 11/03/2025 13:19, Dave wrote:
Dear Everybody,
Sometimes success is a cross you have to bear. Following the help I’ve had here recently, a friend has asked me to post her Particulars of Claim here
in case someone is willing to review it for her.
This is very long and complicated for an LIP.
In simple terms I think the two top level issues are:
- Abuse of a Power of Attorney leading to a diminished value of the estate
- Subsequent misadministration of the (diminished) estate and reduction in value of legacies.
I’ve told her that it is hard to follow, unstructured, doesn’t identify points of law nor available evidence and rambling, that she should (and
that you will say) get paid for legal advice (she can’t afford it) and so on.
Anyway, if anybody could give her even headline advice it would help her.
The says she is Fee Exempt and additionally thinks she is immune from Cost Orders because “Judges shouldn’t leave you in penury” not that she has many
assets.
Sorry for the length, grateful for anything I can feed back to her.
Dave
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Leave blank for court to assign]
Between:
[Your Name] and [Your Mother’s Name]
(Claimants)
-and-
[Husband’s Name] and [Wife’s Name]
(Defendants)
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
Introduction
1. This claim arises from the Defendants’ misappropriation of funds from the estate of the late [Deceased’s Name] (“the deceased”), who passed away
on [date]. The First Defendant is the son of the deceased, and the Second Defendant is the First Defendant’s wife. The Claimants are beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate.
2. The claim concerns the First Defendant’s breaches of fiduciary duty, misuse of the deceased’s funds and estate assets, and failure to comply with court orders during the administration of the estate.
3. The claim also challenges the validity of the Second Defendant’s entitlement to a legacy plus a life time gift from the deceased’s estate. The Defendants’ marriage has been void from its inception.
4. These above were confirmed by the First Defendant himself in prior High Court proceedings, during which he acknowledged the voidable nature of the marriage. Given the marriage’s invalidity, the Second Defendant had no legal entitlement to receive a legacy or other benefits from the deceased’s estate.
Background
5. The deceased was diagnosed with dementia before his passing, rendering
him unable to make financial decisions or approve transactions on his
behalf.
6. The First Defendant was granted Power of Attorney for the deceased but failed to use it. Instead, he accessed and controlled the deceased’s bank accounts without using formal legal processes, diverting funds for his own benefit and that of the Second Defendant.
7. Significant sums from the deceased’s accounts were transferred to the Defendants, including payments made directly to a charity under the First Defendant’s control. No formal agreement or legal authorisation exists to justify these transactions, and the First Defendant failed to provide disclosure regarding the use of these funds.
8. Upon the deceased’s passing, the First Defendant withheld the deceased’s
will and delayed notifying the Probate Registry. The First Defendant
produced a fraudulent, unwitnessed document (“the Agreement”) purporting to
transfer the entirety of the deceased’s estate to himself. This was later revealed to be false when the Claimants obtained the valid will from the family solicitor as confirming the first claimant was also joint executor.
9. The estate administration process was marked by significant delays, including a three-year period to obtain probate (granted in April 2006). Distribution of remaining funds only occurred in 2007.
10. The deceased’s estate named First Defendant Name as a beneficiary alongside the Claimants. However, he did not participate in the administration or the resolution of contentious probate issues. The
Claimants seek restitution on behalf of the estate as a whole, and any
funds recovered will need to be accounted for and distributed according to the terms of the will. The Court is therefore invited to consider the implications for all beneficiaries in determining the appropriate relief. Executor’s Position and Forced Settlement Due to Estate Depletion
11. The First Defendant repeatedly failed to comply with legal obligations, including court orders & the independent executors requests regarding
estate disclosure and financial transparency. His actions resulted in excessive legal fees and prolonged probate proceedings.
12. The court-appointed executor ultimately advised the Claimants that continuing legal action would require appointing a new solicitor and initiating further court proceedings. The executor warned that any
remaining estate funds would likely be exhausted, leaving no assets to distribute.
13. Due to this warning, the Claimants were placed in an inequitable
position and felt compelled to settle. This outcome was a direct
consequence of the First Defendant’s deliberate obstruction, mismanagement, and failure to comply with legal duties.
14. The Claimants contend that, had the First Defendant fulfilled his legal obligations, the estate would have been properly distributed in a timely manner, avoiding unnecessary financial and emotional hardship.
15. The charity into which estate funds were diverted has recently been closed down in a criminal case against the first defendant due to neglect
and mismanagement of animals under its care. The First Defendant has since been banned for life from running or being involved in charities.
16. Furthermore, the First Defendant’s claims of being the victim of hacking and equipment failures, made during both the High Court proceedings and the more recent neglect case in 2024, lack credibility. The repetition
of identical narratives from cases decades apart suggests fabrication to evade responsibility.
Breaches of Duty and Misconduct
17. The First Defendant breached his fiduciary duty to the deceased, the estate, and the Claimants by:
a. Diverting funds from the deceased’s accounts without authorisation or transparency.
b. Misusing estate funds to make gifts to himself, the Second Defendant,
and others.
c. Failing to comply with a High Court order to disclose financial records and administer the estate properly.
d. Obstructing the independent executor, resulting in wasted estate funds.
e. Deliberately delaying the probate process and withholding the deceased’s valid will.
18. “The Second Defendant was a signatory to financial transactions concerning the misappropriated funds and knowingly benefitted from these.
As such, she is jointly liable for the misappropriation of estate assets.” 19. The Second Defendant was also improperly awarded a legacy from the
estate despite the void status of her marriage to the First Defendant. This legacy should be set aside and returned to the estate.
Damages and Losses
20. As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, the Claimants have suffered financial losses, emotional distress, and damage to their health, including:
a. Wasted legal fees incurred due to the First Defendant’s obstruction and non-compliance.
b. The loss of gifts and funds diverted from the estate, including sums transferred to the charity and the Defendants personally.
c. The prolonged delay in probate and the administration of the estate, causing significant emotional distress and financial uncertainty.
d. Emotional harm suffered by the Claimants, including the mother’s hospitalisation following a breakdown of health directly caused by the Defendants’ conduct.
Misuse of Funds Through Companies
21. The First Defendant operated multiple interlinked companies during the relevant period. At the same time that the deceased was placed under his care, a company was incorporated and was immediately granted a director’s loan of several hundred thousand pounds. This company was dissolved within
a month of the deceased’s move into the First Defendant’s residence.
22. Given the timing and the First Defendant’s known control over the deceased’s finances, the Claimants assert that the funds used for this director’s loan originated from the deceased’s estate.
23. The Second Defendant was a signatory to the relevant Companies House documents confirming this transaction. She was therefore aware of, and complicit in, the diversion of estate funds.
24. The Claimants contend that these funds should have remained within the estate and should be accounted for and repaid accordingly.
Financial Relief Sought
25. The Claimants seek the following financial relief:
a. Misappropriated Estate Funds: £X
- Including funds diverted into the First Defendant’s personal accounts, charity & businesses via director’s loans.
b. Improper Legacy & gift to the Second Defendant: £X
- Based on the legacy she should not have received due to the void nature
of the marriage.
c. Wasted Legal Fees & excess interest on probate: X
- Costs incurred due to the First Defendant’s obstruction and failure to comply with court orders.
d. Compensation for Emotional Distress and Health Consequences: £73,900 – £170,560
- Impact on the Claimants’ well-being and long-term health consequences. The Judicial College Guidelines (15th Edition, 2022) provide benchmarks for psychiatric injury compensation.
e. Chattels and Estate Property: £XX,XXX
- Representing the value of items improperly retained by the First
Defendant due to concealment from the valuers (Sworders). Therefore a
figure cannot be obtained, we would invite the courts to make the First defendant return the items, if the courts see fit instead to make a consideration of a sum in this regard.
f. Legacy purported origin - <somebody>: £X – remains unconfirmed.
g. Interest: Pursuant to Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981, calculated at 8% per annum.
Total Estimated Claim Value: £XXX,XXX + Interest
Concealment of Estate Assets – Missing Paintings
26. The First Defendant failed to disclose two paintings belonging to the estate, preventing them from being properly valued for probate purposes.
The Claimants believe these paintings are of significant financial worth
and were intentionally withheld from the valuation process.
27. The Claimants assert that the paintings remain in the First Defendant’s possession or were disposed of without proper disclosure. As such, they
seek:
a. The return of the paintings to the estate, or
b. Compensation for their estimated market value, which is believed to be
in excess of thousands. And again concealed these from valuation, it is documented that these would be returned the first claimant.
28. The First Defendant’s actions constitute a breach of fiduciary duty and estate mismanagement, causing financial loss to the rightful beneficiaries. The Claimants recognise that the precise sums misappropriated by the Defendants, as well as the full financial impact of their actions, remain unknown due to the Defendants' persistent lack of transparency. The
Claimants therefore invite the Court to assess the appropriate level of damages, restitution, and compensation based on the evidence presented. The figures set out above represent estimated losses but remain subject to revision as further disclosures emerge."
The Defendants’ deliberate concealment and misrepresentation of estate assets led to an under-declaration of the deceased’s estate for probate and inheritance tax purposes. Had these assets been properly declared, a higher inheritance tax liability may have arisen. The Claimants seek an order for full financial disclosure of estate assets, including those unlawfully retained or transferred, which may necessitate further reporting to HMRC
for tax reassessment.
Relief Sought
The Claimants seek the following relief:
1. An order for the Defendants to account for all funds and assets taken
from the deceased’s accounts and estate.
2. Recovery of all misappropriated funds, including:
a. Gifts made to the Defendants and others.
b. Funds diverted into personal accounts, the now-defunct charity & businesses under the First Defendant’s control.
3. Repayment of the legacy improperly awarded to the Second Defendant.
4. Damages for financial losses caused by wasted legal fees and delays in estate administration.
5. Compensation for emotional distress for both claimants, including the first claimants hospitalisation & severe & long-term health outcomes.
6. Interest pursuant to section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
7. Costs of the proceedings.
The Claimants estimate the value of this claim to exceed £100,000, and therefore, it is appropriate for determination in the Multi-Track.
Interest at 8% is claimed under Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981
Statement of Truth
The Claimants believe that the facts stated in this claim form are true. Signed: _________________________
[Your Name], Claimant
Dated: _________________________
The amount involved is huge, and therefore would be prudent, if not
essential, to seek legal advice. You may well get no fee no win style of
legal assistance or perhaps, although unlikely, funding through legal
aid. They may get court fees waved if they have insufficient funds or
capital.
No amount should be vague. Each claim amount must be be itemised and
justified through valuations and evidence.
Is your friend the sole beneficiary? If not then any claim would be for
their fraction of the estate? If not it would be prudent for the other beneficiaries join the claim unless they are the defendants?
There is no point in mentioning an undervaluation with regards estate
assets and HMRC. That just complicates issues. And isn't really your
problem.
I wouldn't apply for an order for the defendant(s) to account for all
funds. I would send the text of the claim and ask if there is any
defence or reasonable excuse against the claims.
I think you should decline to help as an LIP but show willingness to
assist any legal counsel.
IANAL
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)