Skinner v Frappell

The plaintiff, Skinner, sought the revocation of a grant of probate in relation to the estate of the deceased, Frappell. Skinner contended that the execution of the proved will was procured by undue influence or fraud by the first defendant, and that the first defendant's interest under the proved will was subject to a secret trust. Additionally, Skinner argued that the inference of fraud was available to explain the change in testamentary intentions and that they had a claim under the Family Provision Act 1982. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was an "eligible person" under the Act, and if so, whether there was emotional dependency, and what amount of provision, if any, should be made.

The court considered whether there was evidence of undue influence or fraud in the execution of the will. It was established that the first defendant had a close relationship with the deceased, and there were significant financial transactions between them. The court found that the first defendant had exercised undue influence over the deceased, leading to the procurement of the will. Additionally, the court held that the first defendant's interest under the proved will was not subject to a secret trust. The court also found that the inference of fraud was available to explain the change in testamentary intentions, as the deceased had previously indicated a desire to provide for the plaintiff.

In relation to the Family Provision Act 1982, the court determined that the plaintiff was an "eligible person" and that there was emotional dependency between the plaintiff and the deceased. The court considered the evidence of the plaintiff's emotional dependency on the deceased and found that it was sufficient to establish the required dependency. The court also considered the amount of provision that should be made, taking into account the deceased's estate, the needs of the plaintiff, and the interests of other beneficiaries. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate amount of provision to be made in favour of the plaintiff was a specific sum.

The court revoked the grant of probate and directed that the estate be distributed in accordance with the court's orders. The first defendant's interest under the proved will was declared to be held on trust for the estate. The court also ordered that the specific sum determined as the appropriate provision be paid to the plaintiff. The court's decision provided clarity and resolution to the dispute regarding the estate of the deceased and the interests of the parties involved.