In a significant ruling from the Chancery Division, the case of Hilton and another v Woolfe and another [2025] EWHC 2285 (Ch) has clarified key principles surrounding the constitution of testamentary trusts, implied assent of assets and trustee appointments. This contentious probate dispute revolved around the Rutland Trust, established under the will of John Keeling Walker, and brought to light the complexities of estate administration and trust law.
Key legal findings
- The Rutland Trust was deemed legally constituted upon the grant of probate on 30 August 2002.
- Vicki Walker and Ian Neal were the original trustees, with Neal resigning shortly after.
- The defendants, Mark Dunkley (MKD) and Simon Hewitt-Wells (SHW), were validly appointed as trustees via a 2008 Deed of Appointment (DOA).
- The deceased’s half share in the Fairfield property was found to be impliedly assented to the Rutland Trust by 17 January 2008.
- The status of the £300,000 Cash Sum remains unresolved pending further evidence.
Background and material facts
John Keeling Walker passed away in January 2002, leaving a will that created the Rutland Trust for the benefit of his third wife, Vicki Walker, during her lifetime. His estate included:
- A half share in the Fairfield property; and
- A £300,000 Cash Sum under Clause 10 of the will.
Vicki Walker remained the sole trustee after Ian Neal’s resignation and later appointed MKD and SHW as trustees in 2008. She continued to live rent-free in the property until her death in September 2023 at age 97.
The claimants—Walker’s daughters—challenged the trust’s constitution and the defendants’ status as trustees, arguing that no formal assent of assets had occurred and that the defendants had agreed to retire unconditionally.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that:
- The Rutland Trust was constituted upon probate, vesting a chose in action in the original trustees.
- The defendants were validly appointed via the DOA in 2008.
- Although no written assent existed, the deceased’s share in Fairfield was impliedly assented to the trust by January 2008. This was inferred from Vicki Walker’s continued occupation and the parties’ conduct.
- The Cash Sum’s status remains undetermined due to insufficient evidence or submissions.
- The 14 December 2023 correspondence did not amount to a binding solicitors’ undertaking. The defendants’ willingness to retire was conditional on receiving indemnities.
Final decision
- The defendants were confirmed as valid Rutland Trustees.
- The Fairfield property share was found to be part of the trust via implied assent.
- The Cash Sum awaits further determination.
- The claimants’ application for summary judgment and strike-out was dismissed.
Implications
This case reinforces the principle that testamentary trusts can be constituted upon probate and that implied assent—through conduct and context—can effectively transfer assets into a trust. It also underscores the importance of clarity in trustee retirement and indemnity arrangements.
For practitioners, Hilton v Woolfe serves as a reminder to document asset assents explicitly and to ensure trustee appointments and retirements are handled with precision and legal safeguards.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is an Associate in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us