For contentious trusts and probate cases, when it comes to settlement, it often involves sale of the property and distribution of the sale proceeds. Sale of the property is not always easy as it is subject to various factors, such as the property market, interest rate, condition of the property, attitude/behaviour of the purchasing and selling parties etc.
Parties should try to anticipate the challenges of sale of the property and be careful with the way the settlement agreement or Tomlin Order is drafted or they may risk breaching the same by not being able to distribute the sale proceeds or pay the other parties in time, which is what happened in the recent case of Webster and another v Webster and others [2026] EWHC 1780 (Ch).
Webster and another v Webster and others [2026] EWHC 1780 (Ch)
Background
Herbert Dodridge Webster died on 8 December 2019 with a will dated 6 December 2007. According to the will, his estate was to be divided between his four children. His estate consists of a principal asset, which was a property held in joint names with the 1st Defendant (i.e. one of his children). Upon his death, the property was passed to the 1st Defendant by doctrine of survivorship. The parties were in dispute and compromised via Tomlin Order dated 14 January 2025, whereby the 1st Defendant retained the property but agreed to pay £175,000 to his three siblings in equal shares.
The 3rd Defendant made an application to lift the stay imposed by the Tomlin Order and to enter judgment against the 1st Defendant in the sum of £175,000 together with interest. The 1st Defendant opposed the application by arguing that the payment obligation was contingent upon sale of the property and alternatively, sought variation to extend time for performance. Therefore, the key issue was whether the payment obligation was unconditional and due by the specified date, or contingent upon sale of the property.
Decision
The court held that:-
- The settlement agreement imposed an unqualified obligation to pay by a specified date, which was not conditional upon sale of the property;
- The 1st Defendant sought to subordinate clear language to inferred purpose, which was not permissible, by collapsing the distinction between obligation to pay and the mechanism by which payment might be achieved;
- Judgment be entered against the 1st Defendant in the sum of £175,000, interest be payable at the contractual rate; and
- The 1st Defendant’s application be dismissed and was ordered to pay the 3rd Defendant’s costs.
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 have any questions concerning the above related subject, please contact Kate, Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us