There is a typical clause in a Will setting out what would happen if a gift fails. In the case of White v Williams [2025] EWHC 115 (Ch), the son of the deceased repeatedly indicated to the executor’s solicitors that he wanted to have nothing to do with the deceased’s estate, but when he was sent a Notice of Disclaimer, he just became unresponsive. Would a disclaimer by the beneficiary as such amount to failure of a gift? The answer is yes.
White v Williams [2025] EWHC 115 (Ch)
Background
The deceased died on 11 June 2023 with a Will dated 31 March 2014 (Will). The Claimant is the sole executor of the Will, and the Grant of Probate was issued on 6 October 2023. The estate’s net value was close to £400,000. According to Clause 6(a) of the Will, the Defendant was one of the beneficiaries under the Will but refused to accept his share as he was estranged from the deceased. The Defendant repeatedly indicated that he did not want anything from the estate, but later chose not to respond to the Notice of Disclaimer sent by the Claimant.
Clause 6(b) of the Will states that:
“PROVIDED also that at any time the trusts declared by Clause 6(a) above should fail then from time of failure that share (and any part or parts of any share which may already have accrued it under this provision) shall accrue to the other share or shares (and equally if more than one) the trusts of which have not at that time failed and be held on the trusts and with and subject to the powers and provisions affecting such other share or shares.”
The questions here were whether:
(1) the actions of the Defendant constituted a failure of the gift in question; and
(2) the Defendant’s share should be distributed according to the intestacy rules or the remaining beneficiaries under clause 6(a) of the Will.
According to the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011, a person disclaiming a bequest is treated as having died immediately before the testator unless the Will indicates otherwise.
Decision
The Court ruled that the Defendant’s share of the residuary estate was to be divided amongst the other beneficiaries of the residuary estate under clause 6(a) of the Will.
The Court referred to the general principles of interpretation of Wills set out in Marley v Rawlings [2015] AC 129:
‘… the court is concerned to find the intention of the party or parties, and it does this by identifying the meaning of the relevant words, (a) in light of (i) the natural and ordinary meaning of those words, (ii) the overall purpose of the document, (iii) any other provisions of the documents, (iv) the facts known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was executed, and (v) common sense, but, (b) ignoring subjective evidence of any party’s intentions.’
The Court further referred to the fact that the natural meaning of failure in clause 6(b) of the Will would include the disclaimer made by the Defendant and allow his share to be distributed amongst the remaining beneficiaries under clause 6(a) of the Will.
In any event, even if the Defendant was treated as having predeceased the Deceased, the substitutionary gift to his child would also fail as he had no children. Therefore, his share would still be distributed amongst the remaining beneficiaries under clause 6(a) of the Will.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us