The Claim
Ms Blyth maintained her position that Mr
Caudle had assured her that she would always
have a “roof over her head” and referred to a
letter of wishes that had been placed with his
Will. On this basis she brought a proprietary
estoppel claim and was required to show the
following: a developer offered to buy the property in
London where his partner and 2 children were
currently living. The offer made was contingent
on the home being sold as a vacant possession
– this meant Ms Harrison-Morgan along with
their children would need to vacate the home
before exchange of contracts. Unfortunately,
Dr Kahrmann died during negotiations.
An assurance that was made to that she would
acquire the bungalow
She relied on that promise or assurance
As a result of relying on the promise, she had
suffered a detriment. Ms Harrison-Morgan argued that a deal
was made between her and the executors
(incidentally Dr Kahrmann’s daughter) where
the profits were to be split between his 4
children (2 from a previous marriage) and her.
Therefore, the home in Belgravia was sold
and the £4.4 million sale proceeds were split
accordingly between Ms Harrison-Morgan (who
received £2.2 million) and the children.
Outcome
It was found that there was no letter of wishes
with the Will. Therefore, the Judge found
against Ms Blyth. There was no evidence to
show Mr Caudle had ever intended to gift her
the bungalow and the Judge was of the belief
that at the time Ms Blyth moved out of the
main home, their relationship ended around
this time. Had Mr Caudle truly wanted to
provide for Ms Blyth, he would have done so.
Ms Blyth was ordered to leave the property and
pay court fees in the sum of around £80,000.
Had Mr Caudle written a letter of wishes which
intended to illustrate his intention to gift the
bungalow to Ms Blyth, the outcome could have
been very different. It is also relevant that if Ms
Blyth was still living with Mr Caudle at the time
of his death, she could have brought a claim
under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and
Dependants) Act 1975 if she could evidence
that she was dependant on him.
KA HR M A N N V H AR R I S ON-MOR G A N
(2 0 19 )
Background
Dr Kahrmann was a wealthy man and shortly
after leaving his wife in 1991, he started a
relationship with Ms Harrison-Morgan. They
had two children and lived in a lavish home in
Belgravia, London.
They later separated and Dr Kahrmann
returned to Germany where he lived until he
died in 2014.
When Dr Kahrmann returned to Germany,
The Claim
One of the daughters, who was also Dr
Kahrmann’s executor, sued Ms Harrison-
Morgan after payment had been made on the
basis that there was a trust in existence with
Dr Kahrmann’s business partner and therefore
by making the payment directly from the buyer
to Ms Harrison-Morgan, this was a clear breach
of the trust terms. She argued that the money
should be repaid and distributed amongst the
children who were the beneficiaries of the
trust.
Outcome
In first instance, Ms Harrison-Morgan was
successful in her claim on the grounds that
she claimed the payment arrangement was
made before Dr Kahrmann’s death.
The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal
who overturned the decision and stated the
money should be repaid to the trust which was
intended for the 4 children.
Over a million pounds has already been spent
in legal fees with a further £500,000 in fees
from the Court of Appeal which Ms Harrison-
Morgan has been ordered to pay. The case is
being heard by the Supreme Court so watch
this space.
BA RNABY V JOHNSON ( 2 019)
Yet another high-profile case which was
recently heard by the High Court where a claim
the society of will writers
19