£100k housekeeper gift fails to make it into elderly man’s will on time

Monday 10 October 2022

The Royal Court has expressed “regret” at not being able to approve a family’s plan to give effect to their late father’s wish that his housekeeper receive £100,000.

In a case heard last month, whose judgment was made public for the first time this week, the Court was asked to decide if the existing wills of John Hedley Le Brocq should be revoked because he had asked his solicitor, Robin Troy, to make tweaks, but sadly passed away before this work was complete.

Prior to his death, he had contacted Mr Troy to discuss boundary issues in relation to his property, leading to a suggestion that Mr Le Brocq's wills may need to be updated. Mr Troy then instructed a clerk in his office to prepare drafts.

In early November 2021, Mr Troy visited Mr Le Brocq to discuss boundaries and further changes to the wills – at which point Mr Le Brocq revealed that he wished to leave £100,000 to his housekeeper and allow her enjoyment of one of his properties for two years, provided she remained in his employment at the time of his death.

Pictured: The case was heard by the Bailiff, Sir Timothy Le Cocq, sitting with Jurats Jerry Ramsden and David Hughes

Those will instructions were sent to the clerk for preparation. However, Mr Le Brocq passed away on 30 November, having "neither signed nor even seen the new draft wills".  At the time of his passing, his housekeeper was still working for him.

This left the Court with a quandary.

Acting as Executors, Le Gallais and Luce argued that Mr Le Brocq had "manifested an intention to revoke his earlier wills and to create new wills", so the best outcome would be a declaration from the court that the he had died intestate.

While the court noted that this seemed like a "strange submission", it noted that it was less so when considering that the family had together agreed a plan to share all the assets between them, with Mr Le Brocq's four children each paying £25,000 out of their respective share to make a total of £100,000 to the housekeeper.

It was also agreed that the housekeeper could continue to reside in the property for six months from Mr Le Brocq's death.

This plan, the Court was told, had the support of "all the beneficiaries".

In considering the request, the Court said that it was not clear if Mr Le Brocq would have wanted his original will revoked – in fact, the evidence seemed to suggest he wouldn't.

It was noted that Mr Le Brocq had only explicitly asked for updates to be made, but that Mr Troy had chosen to start work on a new will, as he held the view that it would be "the most cost-effective way of dealing with the changes requested."

Explaining its decision, the Court was clear that it was not a "straightforward matter" and that its "obligation" was to "seek anxiously for the testamentary intention of the deceased."

While they said it was "clear" that, had he been in a position to approve the new wills, Mr Le Brocq would have revoked his old ones, it was not clear whether he would "have preferred to be intestate rather than allow his original wills to survive in the event that he had pre-deceased as he did."

"In our view it is impossible for us to say that he would and indeed the evidence points to the very strong likelihood that he would not," the Royal Court, consisting of Bailiff Sir Timothy Le Cocq, sitting with Jurats Jerry Ramsden and David Hughes, said in its judgment.

"He would not have wished to be intestate. Had he been so he would have been in a no position to advantage [his housekeeper], which seems to be his aim."

The judgment added: "We fully accept that, all of the parties being in agreement, there is no reason why the estate of the Deceased could not be disposed of and divided in accordance with the agreement that we have seen in draft.

"The agreement is, however, expressly dependent upon the Court declaring that the Wills are revoked and this to us is highly unsatisfactory. It is asking the Court to make a deduction from the facts to a legal effect simply because all parties want to achieve the result.

"In our view the Court should not and cannot do that."

"With regret", the Court dismissed the family's plan, concluding: "The Wills remain valid."