Hilton & Cosnier v Woolfe & Dunkley (ChD, Master Kaye, 12 Sept 2025) — why this case cries out for mediation
What the dispute is about
- The estate of John Keeling Walker (d. 13 Jan 2002). Under his 2001 will, a life-interest “Rutland Trust” gave his widow Vicki a right to live at the Rutland Property and income from a £300,000 cash fund, with the remainder to his daughters (the claimants) after Vicki’s death.
- Two defendants, Stephen Woolfe and Mark Dunkley, say they are the Rutland Trustees (appointed in 2008). The claimants denied the Rutland Trust ever came into existence and treated the defendants as mere “Property Trust” holders of legal title.
Procedural posture
- The claimants issued a Part 8 claim seeking: (i) the defendants’ retirement as trustees, (ii) a transfer of the property to the claimants and Vicki’s son Mr Bradshaw (as executor of Vicki’s estate), and (iii) to enforce what they said was a solicitor’s undertaking to retire.
- They also applied for summary judgment/strike-out; the defendants sought permission to counterclaim for nine trust-administration issues (CPR 8.7).
Key findings
- The application for summary judgment/strike-out was dismissed. The court was critical of the claimants’ approach and their misconstruction of a 14 Dec 2023 email as a binding undertaking.
- The court granted permission for the defendants’ counterclaim to proceed, holding that substantial issues plainly required determination.
- Core ruling on status: the Rutland Trust was completely constituted on the grant of probate (30 Aug 2002). Vicki and Mr Neal were the original trustees; Vicki’s 2008 deed of appointment validly appointed the defendants. The defendants are the current Rutland Trustees.
- Assent: there was an implied assent of the deceased’s half share in the Property to the Rutland Trust by no later than 17 Jan 2008 (transfer/DOA/DOT and parties’ conduct, including Vicki’s rent-free occupation and the claimants’ own stance).
- The position on the £300,000 cash fund was left open: evidence was insufficient to decide whether there was an implied assent of that fund.
- Tax: HMRC has pursued IHT said to arise in the Rutland Trust (incl. the half share and the cash fund). If the defendants retire without adequate indemnities/security, they risk personal liability for tax, interest and penalties.
Case management & ADR
- Recognising a 22-year breakdown of relationships, spiralling costs, and that the real battleground had become indemnities, tax exposure, trustee retirement, and sale mechanics (with Mr Bradshaw’s stance relevant), Master Kaye declined to fix immediate consequentials and instead allowed two months for the parties to resolve matters.
- The court expressly encouraged mediation/ADR, indicating that, at this stage, the dispute “cries out for mediation” because:
- Narrowed issues remain after the trustee-status ruling (indemnities, IHT allocation, cash-fund treatment, sale/transfer logistics).
- Costs are disproportionate to the tasks left (paper-driven issues capable of negotiated solution).
- Multi-stakeholder buy-in is needed (claimants, current trustees, and Mr Bradshaw/Vicki’s estate)—a classic mediation configuration.
- Time sensitivity due to accruing IHT interest/penalties, which mediation can address with practical sequencing (e.g., conditional transfers, escrow, staged indemnities).
- The history shows litigation has entrenched positions; a facilitated process offers the best chance of a durable, cost-effective settlement.
Bottom line
- Status settled: the defendants are the Rutland Trustees; the Property share sits in the Rutland Trust (implied assent by 2008).
- What’s left is tailor-made for a mediated package: trustee retirement terms, scope of indemnities, allocation of IHT liabilities, the cash fund question, and a co-ordinated sale/transfer plan involving Mr Bradshaw.
- The court’s message is clear: stop litigating the relationship—mediate the solution.