IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

MR JAMES H. ALLEN Q.C. SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

IN THE ESTATE OF JOYCE MARY GILL: DECEASED

BETWEEN

DR. CHRISTINE ANGELA GILL

AND

(1) STEPHEN WOODALL
(2) STANLEY ANTHONY LONSDALE
(3) THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS - Defendants

JUDGMENT

The parties

1. The Claimant, Dr Christine Angela Gill ("the Claimant") is the only child of John Arthur Gill deceased ("Mr Gill") and his wife, Joyce Mary Gill deceased ("Mrs Gill").
2. The First and the Second Defendants, Stephen Woodall and Stanley Anthony Lonsdale are partners in the solicitors firm of Hunt & Wrigley and the Executors appointed by the will of Mrs Gill dated the 27th April 1993.
3. The Third Defendant, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is the sole residuary beneficiary of the estate of Mrs Gill pursuant to the terms of her will.

Representation

4. The Claimant is represented by Miss Tracey Angus, of Counsel, the First and Second Defendants have not been represented at the trial of this action, have not participated in the trial and have adopted a position of neutrality in relation to the claims of the Claimant and the defences of the Third Defendant. The Third Defendant is represented by Mrs Elspeth Talbot Rice, Queens Counsel.

The Claimant's case summarised

5. By the terms of Mrs Gill's will she left the whole of her estate to her husband, Mr Gill, and, in the event of him predeceasing her, to the Third Defendant.
6. The Claimant disputes the validity of Mrs Gill's will on two grounds. They are:-
   1. At the time Mrs Gill executed the will she did not know and approve its contents;
   2. Mrs Gill executed the will as a result of coercion or pressure exerted by Mr Gill such as to overcome Mrs Gill's volition with the consequence the will was not the result of the free volition of Mrs Gill.
7. The Claimant advances an alternative claim in proprietary estoppel based upon an assertion that she expected to inherit Potto Carr Farm ("the Farm"), the farming business carried on therefrom and the assets of that farming business, including the money which it generated, which expectation was encouraged by Mr Gill and Mrs Gill and the Claimant acted to her detriment in reliance upon that encouraged expectation.

The Third Defendant's case summarised

8. The claims of the Claimant are fully defended by the Third Defendant. In respect of the claim in proprietary estoppel, the Third Defendant also contends that if an equity has arisen in favour of the Claimant (which is denied), the transfer to the Claimant of the Farm, the farming business, its assets and monies would be disproportionate in the context of such detriment as the Claimant might prove to have suffered in reliance upon such expectation as the Claimant proves was encouraged by Mrs Gill. The Third Defendant, thus, relies upon the legal principle of the Court granting the minimum equitable relief to do justice, or as is necessary, to avoid an unconscionable result.

The Claimant's and the Third Defendant's detailed cases

9. The claims of the Claimant and the defences raised by the Third Defendant are fully detailed in the Amended Particulars of Claim, dated the 7th of December 2007, the Amended Defence of the Third Defendant, dated the 11th of January 2008 and the Claimant's Reply thereto, dated the 11th of July 2008.

The background

10. On the 23rd of February 1917 Mr Gill was born and on the 19th of July 1924 Mrs Gill was born. They married on the 25th of October 1947.
11. Mr and Mrs Gill had one child, the Claimant, who was born on the 28th of May 1950.
12. In 1952 Mr and Mrs Gill purchased, as joint tenants, Brookfields, a Farm near Girsby, North Yorkshire.
13. In 1968, the Claimant left Northallerton Grammar school and commenced her further education.
14. By September 1973 the Claimant had successfully completed her degree course for a BSc in Mathematics and Computing and had commenced to read Mathematics at Leeds University.
15. On the 13th of September 1975 Mr and Mrs Gill purchased the Farm situated at Ingleby Cross, North Yorkshire, as joint tenants but they continued to reside at Brookfields.
16. On the 6th of June 1978, Mr and Mrs Gill purchased a field, known as Hartley Field, which was part of Fagdale Hall Farm, as joint tenants.
17. The Claimant pursued her academic career at Leeds University culminating in the completion of her Ph.D. course in 1979. This was followed by her appointment to the staff of the University in June 1979, a research fellowship in 1980 and the post of Lecturer for a 3 year probationary period with that post being confirmed in March 1983.
18. In June 1986 Mr and Mrs Gill agreed to sell the land at Brookfields to a Mr Robson but they continued to reside in the farmhouse there.
19. On the 14th of July 1986 the Claimant married Dr. Andrew Baczkowski ("Dr Baczkowski").
20. On the 7th of November 1986, the Claimant and Dr Baczkowski purchased White House Farm, Trenholme Bar, which adjoined the Farm, as joint tenants at a price of £33,000.00 of which sum £13,000.00 was provided by Mr and Mrs Gill.
21. Between November 1986 and June 1987 a new Farmhouse was constructed at the Farm and Mr and Mrs Gill moved out of Brookfields into that new Farmhouse upon its construction being completed.
22. On the 27th of April 1993, Mr and Mrs Gill each executed wills which had been prepared by Mr Argyle, then a partner in the firm of Hunt & Wrigley solicitors, which wills may be conveniently be described as "mirror wills".
23. By the terms of each will the maker left all hislher property to the other spouse absolutely for his/her sole use and benefit providing he/she survived the maker for a period of one month. If they did not, or if he/she predeceased the maker of the will, all of the maker's property would vest in the appointed trustees to pay funeral and testamentary expenses, inheritance tax and debts and to hold the residue upon trust for the Third Defendant.
24. Paragraph 5 of each will reads as follows:-
    1. "I DECLARE that no provision is hereby made for my daughter (the Claimant) because I feel that she has been well provided for by me over a long period of time".
25. In the summer of 1993 the Claimant and Dr Baczkowski moved into a new house which had been constructed at White House Farm.

26. On the 7th June 1997, the Claimant gave birth to Christopher.
27. On the 19th April 1999 Mr Gill died aged 82 years.
28. On the 21st August 2006, Mrs Gill died at the Friarage hospital, NorthaIIerton, at 18:55 pm.
29. On the 1st September 2006, the Claimant instructed Freeman Johnson, solicitors.
30. On the 19th of October 2006, a letter of claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 was sent by Freeman Johnson on behalf of the Claimant to the Executors.
31. On the 18th of January 2007 NorthaIIerton Estate Agency provided a probate valuation of the Farm at £1.2 million to £1.4 million.
32. On the 16th of April 2007 probate of Mrs Gill's will was granted to the First and Second Defendants.
33. On the l0th of October 2007 the Claimant instructed Mishcon de Reya in substitution for Messrs. Freeman Johnson.
34. On the 6th of December 2007 the First and Second Defendants accepted an offer to sell the farmhouse and 55.75 acres of land forming part of the Farm to Mr Robinson at a price of £1,060,495.00 and 219.9 acres of land forming part of the Farm to Mr Stephen Dawson for £1,089,505.00.
35. On the 7th of December 2007 the present action was commenced and the Claimant applied for an order preventing the First and Second Defendants from disposing of the Farm until the trial of this action.
36. On the 11th of February 2008 a Consent Order recording the parties' undertakings was made on the Claimant's application which prevented the disposal of the Farm until the determination of this action.
37. The trial commenced on Monday the 15th of July 2008 and was finally concluded with the receipt of certain final submissions on the 30th of April 2009.

Capacity

38. No issue arises in this case as to the capacity of Mrs Gill when executing her will. The Claimant contends, inter alia, that Mrs Gill suffered from an extreme anxiety disorder which did not result in lack of capacity to make the will but did result in an inability to know and approve the contents of the will when she signed it on the 27th of April 1993.

The evidence

The Claimant's evidence in chief

39. Three witness statements of the Claimant dated the 8th of May 2008, the 25th of June 2008 and the 8th of July 2008 respectively, were admitted as her evidence in chief.
40. It is not necessary to recite the contents of those three witness statements in their entirety in this Judgment. Though I shall make reference to only parts of those witness statements or summarise parts thereof, I have paid careful regard to the whole of the contents of each witness statement.
41. The evidence in chief of the Claimant addresses the nature and extent of the work the Claimant carried out at Brookfields Farm on attaining the age of 13 years and continued to carry out until she attained the age of 18 years in 1968 whereupon she left school and commenced a course at Leeds School of Architecture living in lodgings in Leeds.
42. Her evidence deals with her relationship with her parents, with whom she says she got on well. She describes Mr Gill as not being a talkative man. He rarely discussed what he was feeling. He was somewhat old fashioned in his outlook, hardworking, determined and stubborn. The Claimant states that at times Mr Gill could be domineering and on occasions his temper would get the better of him leading to an outburst of fury. Those outbursts could be triggered by a comment made by Mrs Gill or frustration which Mr Gill felt at a piece of machinery which was not working or by him being unable to find the dog. As Mr Gill became older and his health deteriorated his irritability grew worse so that he would fly into a rage at the slightest provocation. According to the Claimant this worried Mrs Gill a great deal and she would try to avoid any confrontation with Mr Gill particularly after Mr Gill's aortic aneurysm operation which took place in 1987. Mrs Gill was concerned that if Mr Gill became angry he might have a heart attack, a stroke or another aneurysm.
43. Mrs Gill's personality was very different from that of Mr Gill. According to the Claimant she was extremely fearful and insecure. The Claimant's maternal grandmother told the Claimant that Mrs Gill had been timid as a child and, as a teenager, she would get dressed to go out, come downstairs, and then turn back as she would be unable to leave the house. In reliance upon what Mrs Gill and the Claimant's maternal grandmother had told her, it seems that during her 20s Mrs Gill enjoyed a period of relative boldness and bravery. She met and married Mr Gill. She drove a taxi in their taxi business but when Mr and Mrs Gill began farming, in about 1948, Mrs Gill's old insecurities returned and she came to depend heavily on Mr Gill and, as the Claimant grew older, upon the Claimant.
44. Mrs Gill suffered from poor health, in particular biliousness and migraines. During the Claimant's teenage years Mrs Gill's migraine attacks became more frequent which meant increased amounts of care from the Claimant. Mrs Gill would retire to her bed for days at a time with a migraine which would end in a bilious attack after which she would recover. During these periods when Mrs Gill was ill, the Claimant would take care of her as well as looking after the house and cooking for Mr Gill.
45. According to the Claimant Mrs Gill suffered from various phobias which became marked as time passed. Mrs Gill was frightened of being left alone. As the years went by and Mr Gill needed Mrs Gill's help less, Mrs Gill's fear of being left alone became more obvious and problematical. If the Claimant was not with Mrs Gill in the house, Mrs Gill would follow Mr Gill around the Farm even if there was no work for Mrs Gill to do. At the end of the day she would return home with Mr Gill and begin her household tasks. Similarly, unless the Claimant stayed with Mrs Gill at home, she would always accompany Mr Gill if he left the Farm for any reason but would remain sitting in the motor car while Mr Gill attended to his business.
46. The Claimant would spend a great deal of time "mother sitting" so that Mr and Mrs Gill could get on with things separately. Mrs Gill did not like to travel far from home and she would not travel anywhere by herself. She was only prepared to drive the car by herself if she was able to follow behind Mr Gill driving the tractor. Mrs Gill would never drive the motor car to see her parents or brother and once the Claimant was old enough to drive she would drive Mrs Gill everywhere she needed to go.
47. Mrs Gill would go to extreme lengths to avoid meeting or talking to people outside the family. She would not talk to people on the telephone. She would avoid going shopping but would sit in the car while Mr Gill bought groceries. She avoided visiting the doctor and would not have a doctor visit the house. Mrs Gill's anxiety about meeting people meant the Claimant could not have friends visit her at home. If anyone did come into the house, Mrs Gill would rush upstairs to "hide" in the bathroom. This made it difficult to have workmen to carry out repairs inside Mr and Mrs Gill's house. If there were jobs that needed doing around the house which Mr Gill or the Claimant or, later on, Dr Baczkowski could not do, those jobs did not get done at all. Mr Gill had to entertain business associates outside or in the Farm buildings or even sitting in his motor car. When Mrs Gill was forced to speak to someone outside the family she would say as little as possible and would usually pay no attention to what was being said to her so that afterwards she would ask Mr Gill or the Claimant to tell her what had been said.
48. Mrs Gill also had great difficulty in making a decision about anything whether important or trivial. She could not decide about household furnishings or decorations or what clothes she wanted to buy or even what to wear if she had to go out. If something was bought for Mrs Gill she would want it taken back. Mrs Gill's inability to decide upon anything meant that Mr and Mrs Gill's house was never completely furnished. It also meant that Mr Gill made all decisions concerning Mr and Mrs Gill's financial affairs and the Farm which Mr Gill tended to do without consulting Mrs Gill.

49. Mrs Gill's various phobias and insecurities made life difficult for Mr Gill and the Claimant. The Claimant and Mr Gill organised their lives around the fixed points of that which Mrs Gill could or could not do. The Claimant gave an example of Christopher's 4th birthday when the Claimant persuaded Mrs Gill to travel with her and Christopher to Great Ayton to buy ice creams and walk along the river. Mrs Gill went but when they arrived she would not get out of the motor car. She just sat in the car waiting for the Claimant and Christopher.
50. As well as having anxieties, Mrs Gill had a number of obsessive traits. She would wash the soles of her shoes after going outside even if she had just been hanging out the washing. She had her own plate, cup and cutlery and would take them with her if she was going to see her parents, her brother or the Claimant and she used to wear washing up gloves all the time even when she went out in the car.
51. When cross examined by Mrs Talbot Rice, the Claimant told the Court that Mrs Gill volunteered for the land army in 1942, went on a training course with other people and then worked on a local farm with other people until 1945. After marrying Mr Gill in 1947, Mrs Gill drove a taxi and, consequently, came into frequent and regular contact with many strangers. In 1948 the taxi business was sold and the proceeds of sale were utilised in the purchase of a small holding near Ripon. Mrs Gill was bright and active when young. She was interested in life on the farm, she took an interest in politics and was critical of the labour government. Mrs Gill, however, became more reserved. By the 1960s she had become uneasy about staying at home on her own. She became anxious about social events and started to avoid them. Though Mrs Gill would travel in the car with Mr Gill to parents evenings at Northallerton Grammar school she would stay in the car whilst Mr Gill went into the school. Mrs Gill was, according to the Claimant, beginning to withdraw. By the 1970s Mrs Gill got worse. She did not go to social events and she would not go to funerals or weddings. By the 1980s the Claimant was doing more work for her. The Claimant would do the shopping, she would purchase Mrs Gill's clothes and eventually she purchased her shoes for her. Mrs Gill's withdrawl was a gradual process and she became progressively debilitated.
52. The Claimant was referred to a number of letters written by Mrs Gill over the period the 12th of January 1970 to 1978. The contents of those letters referred to journeys to Barkers Departmental Store in Northallerton, to Barclays Bank at Stockton-on-Tees, to Charles Clinkards shoe shop and to Comet the electrical retailer at Stockton-on-Tees.
53. The Claimant's testimony when cross examined was that Mr Gill would have accompanied Mrs Gill on these journeys, that it would be Mr Gill who would go into the bank and the various stores and who would conduct the necessary business and purchases there. However, the Claimant accepted that throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s Mrs Gill went to the dentist for treatment. It appears from the contents of letters, copies of which appear in trial bundle E4, that in 1971 Mrs Gill was able to walk the length of Northallerton High Street, enter Uptons store, a shop next to Maynards and inspect goods on what was a shopping expedition. In December 1971, Mrs Gill went shopping in Darlington. In January 1972 she went shopping in the sales in Darlington for an hour. The Claimant fully accepted that Mrs Gill would go to the shops a few times a year in the early 1970s. Somewhere between 1975 and 1978 she went into Charles Clinkards, the footwear store, and purchased a pair of shoes. The Claimant stated that Mrs Gill would not drive herself to the shops. She would be driven by Mr Gill who would accompany her and, apart from the odd occasion, would accompany Mrs Gill when she went on a shopping expedition. However, according to the Claimant, Mrs Gill would avoid going shopping. According to the Claimant, in the 1970s Mrs Gill would sit in the car whilst Mr Gill did the shopping for groceries. Eventually Mrs Gill avoided shopping altogether but in the 1970s she would try and buy her own clothes and shoes and Christmas presents for the Claimant's grandparents. In the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s Mrs Gill would not go shopping and it was the Claimant who did her shopping for her. It is to be noted that the 99 letters in trial bundle E4 cover the years 1971 to 1978. The Claimant accepted that Mrs Gill was able to talk, to confront and to remonstrate with people in 1971 and 1972. She also accepted that in the 1970s, Mrs Gill dealt with people who attended at her home including workmen and trades people. In the 1970s and early 1980s Mrs Gill was, according to the Claimant, confident in her own home. She was capable of taking in what a visitor, who was a stranger, said to her and she was also capable of dealing with poachers on the farm and in the latter case, she kept an eye on the potential poachers from her home and there is a record of her doing this in November 1986. In March 1973 she had a conversation with solicitors on the telephone in relation to the administration of her mother-inlaw's estate. Mrs Gill understood what was said and dealt with the matter entirely rationally. Mrs Gill granted a tenancy of former buildings at the Farm to Mr Howard Kitching the terms of which had been discussed between the Claimant and Mr Christopher Arundel of Messrs. Addisons, Chartered Surveyors, in the presence of Mrs Gill. The written lease was prepared by Mr Arundel who sent it by post to Mrs Gill for signature and Mrs Gill signed the lease, dated the 1st of September 2000, in her own kitchen in the presence of the Claimant who then took it to her own home where her mother-in-law signed the Deed as a witness to the signature of Mrs Gill. The Claimant could not witness Mrs Gill's signature and, according to the Claimant, Mrs Gill would not permit anyone to enter her house for the purpose of witnessing the same.
54. Mrs Gill also signed the accounts for the farming business. Those accounts were prepared by Hanby & Co. They were then sent to Mr and Mrs Gill at their home address where they were signed by Mrs Gill. According to the Claimant, Mrs Gill did not check the accounts but she knew they were accounts for the business and she showed no disinclination to sign them. In trial bundle E5 are copies of the balance sheets and trading accounts for Mr and Mrs Gill for the years 1993 to 1997 and their financial statements for the year ending the 31st of December 1998. It is to be noted that there are also included copies of the financial statements for Mrs Gill solely for the years 1999 to 2004 which bear the signature of Mrs Gill.
55. In response to questions posed by Mrs Talbot-Rice, the Claimant stated that Mrs Gill knew her own mind and expressed it when it came to her medical treatment. She also made decisions in relation thereto. Consideration of Mrs Gill's medical records, copies of which are included in trial bundle E2 evidence the following. On the 1ih of March 1999, Dr Ramsden, GP, advised Mrs Gill quite strongly that he thought hospital admission was the only sensible way to proceed in relation to her cellutitis condition but she refused such point blank. According to the Claimant, Mrs Gill refused to go to hospital because her medical condition was the lesser evil. Mrs Gill's fear of going to hospital overrode the common sense need to have her leg treated more expertly.
56. The medical records also reveal that on the 16th of March 2000, Mrs Gill attended the outpatient department of Friarage hospital at Northallerton where she was seen by a clinical nurse specialising in rheumatology. In the course of that appointment, Mrs Gill explained she was reluctant to take any tablets on a regular basis but was keen to try a herbal remedy.
57. The Claimant accepted that this was Mrs Gill making a clear decision which was hers to make.
58. In a nursing report in respect of Mrs Gill there is an entry for April 2000 which records her refusal to take G.T.N. spray as she did not wish to experience the side effects.
59. The Claimant agreed with Mrs Talbot-Rice that Mrs Gill had refused to take the spray and that her decision had been made against the medical advice which she had received. The Claimant also accepted that Mrs Gill provided a rational reason for the decision made by her to decline the medical treatment advised. The Claimant stated that though Mrs Gill took decisions she was indecisive in many respects in relation to other aspects of her life and in respect of medical treatment she was indecisive in that she adopted the least troublesome course of action.
60. On or shortly before the 22nd of February 2002, Mrs Gill was seen in the outpatient clinic of Friarage hospital when she was advised about an investigation of her colon. However, Mrs Gill expressed the view that she would not like to have anything done further either in the form of a colonoscopy or a barium enema.

61. The Claimant accepted that Mrs Gill again had taken a decision not to undergo the invasive treatments advised by the doctor. She also accepted that Mrs Gill reversed that decision after a number of meetings with Dr. Walters over the period February 2002 to June 2002 and that Mrs Gill often questioned professionals such as Dr Walters. The Claimant told the Court that Mrs Gill did not ask very searching questions. That quite often it was the Claimant, who accompanied Mrs Gill, who would ask the intelligent questions of the professionals and later Mrs Gill would then ask the Claimant to explain what had been said. Mrs Gill, in some ways, could ask questions but she did not take in the responses to those questions. The Claimant agreed with Mrs Talbot-Rice that Mrs Gill was able to ask questions notwithstanding she was asking them of a stranger, that she knew her own mind and she voiced it. The Claimant further accepted that in the home Mrs Gill would argue with, and stand up to, Mr Gill to a point. Mrs Gill would not always do what Mr Gin asked her to do and that included legal matters. When Brookfields Farm was sold in June 1987 Mrs Gill refused for some time to sign the conveyance thereof.
62. Both the Claimant's marriage and Mr Gill's funeral were small quiet affairs with few people invited. The Claimant told the Court this was because Mrs Gill would not otherwise attend. She would have wanted to attend the Claimant's marriage but she would not have been able to get herself to it if there had been many people attending. Mrs Gill did not wish to attend Mr Gill's funeral as she did not wish to be seen in public. Even the undertakers and the Vicar were a strain for Mrs Gill. However Mrs Gill did attend 1 or 2 of Christopher's summer concerts and his winter pantomimes but she could not bring herself to attend others. According to the Claimant she wanted to but she just could not do it. She could not get ready, she could not face people, she could not talk to people. The Claimant took Mrs Gill to Christopher's summer concerts and the pantomimes. Mrs Gill wanted to go but she found great difficulty in actually just doing so. She just couldn't face things. Apart from the 1 or 2 summer concerts and pantomimes, though Mrs Gill tried to go she capitulated at the last minute and just couldn't bring herself to get into the car. The Claimant accepted that Mrs Gill did attend Christopher's pantomimes over the Christmas periods of 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
63. The Claimant described the sequence of events when Mrs Gill attempted to attend Christopher's summer concerts but failed to do so. The Claimant's evidence was that the concerts usually started about 2.00 in the afternoon at Christopher's school. In order to go and get a seat which had a view of the pantomime one had to go just after 1.00 pm. Mrs Gill would have to get ready and dress in appropriate things. In order to achieve this she would get up early that morning and worry and plot and plan and fidget and she never had time for lunch if she had to get out of the house by 1.00 pm. She would just take all morning to get ready. She would do her hair 50 times and she would change her mind about what to put on 50 times even though the Claimant told her " well just put on that and that and then we can go". Mrs Gill sometimes would be in a complete state of exhaustion as a result of her activities and she would sit and say - "I just cannot do it". Sometimes, as a result of coaxing on the part of the Claimant, Mrs Gill would manage to attend the concert. At other times she would get to what the Claimant described as "breaking point" whereupon the Claimant would give in and Mrs Gill would tell her to go on her own.
64. When Mrs Gill got to breaking point she would appear distressed and anxious, cornered and weak. She would sit down. She would not be able to stand. She would just be like an empty cloth doll. The Claimant described her as being completely down with all the stuffing knocked out of her somehow. Mrs Gill would have no will and she would be upset with herself because she would want to do it but she was just incapable of doing

    "Suffers only from old age eye sight affected by aged related macrophilia, has grumbling varicose veins (awaiting surgery)".

    so. The Claimant would acquiesce with Mrs Gill's wishes and she would eventually go by herself.
65. In July 2005 the Claimant had a 10 night break and Mrs Gill was admitted to a nursing home in Bedale. The Claimant provided a social profile in respect of Mrs Gill which reads:-

    "Mum is quite well but rather fraiL She looks after herself at home. She likes to be active but has little stamina. She is quite shy and is quite a private person".

66. A brief medical history was completed which reads:-
67. It was put to the Claimant that she did not tell the nursing staff or the admission staff at the Bedale nursing home that Mrs Gill suffered from anxiety to the degree which the Claimant described in her witness statements.
68. The Claimant gave evidence that she did not inform the staff of Mrs Gill's anxiety because she wasn't being treated for anxiety by the doctors. In relation to the social profile provided by the Claimant, she gave evidence that this was an understatement of what Mrs Gill was like which the Claimant provided out of respect for Mrs Gill and her sensibilities. The Claimant stated that Mrs Gill was sufficiently private not to want people to know anything about her at all so the Claimant said as little as she could without trying to give completely the wrong impression that she was a perfectly normal, sociable, active person that they wouldn't have any problems with or anxieties about. The Claimant told the Court that she did not divulge details that she knew Mrs Gill would not have wished her to divulge and which the staff did not need to know. Mrs Talbot-Rice put it to the Claimant that if Mrs Gill was as severely disabled mentally as the Claimant was asserting the staff would have needed to know such in order to deal with her appropriately. The Claimant's response was that she did not believe the staff needed to know any more than the Claimant told them. Mrs Talbot-Rice then put it to the Claimant that what she had written about Mrs Gill's social profile in July 2005, approximately a year before Mrs Gill died was an accurate representation of what Mrs Gill was actually like and that since Mrs Gill's death the Claimant had exaggerated to an extraordinary degree the shyness from which Mrs Gill suffered. The Claimant stated that she would not accept such.
69. Mrs Talbot-Rice drew the Claimant's attention to the instructions which the Claimant gave to the nursing home staff in respect of the care of Mrs Gill. A copy of the care plan lies at page 63 of trial bundle E2. The express aim of the care plan was to keep Mrs Gill as independent as possible but encourage her to mix and the planned care reads:-

    "To give encouragement to mix with others as much as possible".

70. The Claimant denied that the care plan had been written after discussions with herself though she accepted that she had discussed with the nursing home staff what was anticipated to happen to Mrs Gill during her 10 day stay at the nursing home. The Claimant was emphatic that she did not suggest to the staff that she wanted Mrs Gill to be encouraged to mix with other people. The Claimant told the Court that she knew her mother. She knew she would want to go and stay in her room and not come out until the stay was over.
71. Mrs Talbot-Rice put it to the Claimant that on the Claimant's evidence the nursing home staff had simply made this entry up, that the Claimant hadn't asked this of the staff so the staff had just made it up out of the blue. The Claimant told the Court that she had not said that she wanted Mrs Gill to be encouraged to mix. It was quite clear when the Claimant arranged for Mrs Gill to go to the home that Mrs Gill would want to be left alone and that she was not used to mixing with people and that she did not wish to mix with people. The Claimant confirmed that, on her evidence given to the Court, mixing with other residents in the care home would have been an appalling prospect for Mrs Gill. Mrs Talbot-Rice suggested to the Claimant that whilst Mrs Gill was shy and reticent in her later years she was perfectly able to engage with others. The Claimant's answer to that was - "no, my mother was an extreme case. She was very difficult to manage".

72. Under questioning from Mrs Talbot-Rice, the Claimant confirmed that Mrs Gill was perfectly able to engage with professionals, she was also well able to express her own view and make her own decisions. The Claimant also stated that up to a point Mrs Gill made decisions against what she had been urged to do by others but stated that Mrs Gill permitted herself to be overridden and that she didn't always stick to her established view. Mrs Gill would be led and would change her mind and do quite the opposite of what she wished to do. Having given that evidence, the Claimant then confirmed that farm machinery, which was desired to be sold but which Mrs Gill wished to be retained, was in fact retained and not sold. The Claimant expressed the belief that Mrs Gill was trapped inside herself, she did not like to be left alone but at the same time she did not want to be with other people.
73. It was put to the Claimant that if Mrs Gill had a fear of people then putting her into a care home was the antipathy of what she required. Mrs Gill was being put into an environment filled with people rather than keeping her away from that sort of environment. The Claimant explained that by ensuring that Mrs Gill could remain in her own single room, and have her meals in that room, she had limited Mrs Gill's environment to as few people around her as could be achieved and yet with security.
74. The Claimant told the Court that Mrs Gill informed her that she thought she and Mr Gill had left everything to each other. The Claimant did not believe that Mrs Gill knew that upon the death of the survivor of she and Mr Gill, their combined estate would go to the Third Defendant.
75. The Claimant had prepared a document headed Comments on Will of Joyce Mary Gill- September 29, 2006. She had written this document within 6 weeks of Mrs Gill's death. At page 3 of this 57 page document is written the following: -

    "The will made in 1993 was a mirror will and was clearly (to me) all of my father's doing, not least because my mother was not capable of carrying out such a task. She went along with it, I believe, out of weakness and/or perhaps of fear of upsetting my father". "I also suspect that towards the end of her life she forgot the precise nature of this will as her attitude towards me and her total trust in me was inconsistent with such a will".

76. Mrs Talbot-Rice put it to the Claimant the part of that document prepared by her which is last quoted above presupposes that Mrs Gill knew what was in her will because the Claimant was saying, in the document of the 29th September 2006, that the Claimant considered Mrs Gill had forgotten what was in her will. Consequently, at the time she must have known what was in the will but she had forgotten it. The Claimant's response to this was that the purpose of her writing the document of the 29th September was to satisfy her former solicitors, Freeman Johnson, who asked her to set down everything that she and her husband had done for Mr and Mrs Gill, and that this was only a few weeks after Mrs Gill's death and the shock of the will. The document therefore contained various speculations and, what the Claimant would almost call, emotionally charged ramblings in that she was casting herself about to try and explain what had happened. However, later in the document, at page 24 thereof, there is the following statement by the Claimant:-

    In her later years my mother became forgetful of "unpleasant" things; examples include forgetting that I was going out to the theatre after I had told her; forgetting that she had signed consent forms for her cataract operation, even though it was only a matter of a few weeks between the consent given and attending for the pre-operation assessment. It is this that makes me suspect that eventually she genuinely forgot what was in the will".

77. The Claimant's explanation was that this was just emotional ramblings. That she was casting about in her mind just trying to explain it and that she was still in shock.
78. The Claimant was taken to clause 5 of Mrs Gill's will. The will is essentially a one page document and clause 5 sets out the declaration:-

    “I DECLARE that no provision is hereby made for my daughter Christine Angela Baczkowski because I feel that she has been well provided for by me over a long period of time".

79. The Claimant gave evidence that this declaration was incorrect. The Claimant, however, accepted that Mr and Mrs Gill had provided for her throughout her 11 years of student life between 1968 and 1979 and that in 1986 they made a gift of approximately £13,000.00 which enabled the Claimant and Dr Baczkowski to buy White House Farm free of mortgage. The Claimant also accepted that Mr Gill had masterminded the purchase of White House Farm. The Claimant did not accept that Mr and Mrs Gill would have seen themselves as having set the Claimant up in White House Farm. In 1993 the Claimant had no dependents. Both she and Dr Baczkowski had incomes from Leeds University.
80. It was the Claimant's evidence that Mrs Gill would never have signed a will with clause 5 in it but she would not say the same about her father, Mr Gill. Mr Gill, according to the Claimant, was capable of making the declaration and sticking to it but the Claimant did not believe her mother was. However, the Claimant could not explain why Mr Gill would have included the declaration in his will. The Claimant could not explain why her father, Mr Gill, would wish to make a will which disinherited his only child of whom he appeared to have been fond and whom he kept about him all her life.
81. The Claimant admitted that one of the reasons she expected to inherit the Farm was her belief that it was, and is, her birth right to inherit the Farm. The Claimant knew of no one who had been left out of a will and not inherited anything from their parents let alone a Farm. In the case of all the farming people she knew the Farm had been passed down from one generation to the next. The Claimant was clear in her evidence that if she had been told that there was no mention of her in Mrs Gill's will she would not have made so many personal sacrifices to help so much with the Farm.
82. It was accepted by the Claimant that in the document dated the 29th September 2006, which was written by her, she did not claim that she had been told or led to believe by either parent that she would inherit the Farm. She also accepted that there was nothing to that effect in the letters written by Mrs Gill to the Claimant. Mr and Mrs Gill did not discuss with the Claimant what they intended to do by their wills. The Claimant wrote a letter, dated the 6th of December 1999, for signature by Mrs Gill, in which she described Mrs Gill as executor and sale beneficiary of Mr Gill. The Claimant's evidence was that she understood Mrs Gill would be the executor of Mr Gill and she knew from what Mrs Gill had told her that Mrs Gill was the sale beneficiary of Mr Gill's will. The Claimant raised with Mrs Gill the issue of wills. She asked what was in the will of Mr Gill and Mrs Gill told her that she thought they had left everything to each other or - "I think it leaves everything to each other".
83. On the 1i hl18th of August 2006, Mrs Gill was admitted to hospital for further palliative care. On the 21st of August at 10.07 am, the Claimant telephoned Hunt &Wrigley and informed them that "her father had died in April 1999 having made a will which was not proved. Mrs Gill never made a will. The Claimant had never seen a copy of Mr Gill's will and did not know she was mentioned in it".
84. When asked by Mrs Talbot-Rice why had she made the telephone call, the Claimant's evidence was that she was anxious about Mr Gill's will because it had never been proved. Mr Hall of Hunt & Wrigley attempted to contact the Claimant and they then spoke on the 2211d of August.

86. Mr Hall's file note of the conversation reads as follows:-

    "NAJH engaged in receiving a returned call from Christine Angela Gill on the 22nd August 2006. Her mother had died in the Friarage yesterday and she really wanted to know what the position was. She knew that her mother had a will but NAJH saying that he was not at liberty to disclose the terms of that will at present. She will drop off the Death Certificate and so on tomorrow and NAJH will then contact her because there are some urgent matters that need dealing with and in particular there is a Farm contract on Potto Carr Farm which will need to be considered and various bills which she thought required immediate attention. She appreciated that NAJH had to be careful what he said at this stage. She knows that the Partners in the firm are the executors. She said that obviously she wouldn't want to be paying anything if everything had been left to the Dogs Home but NAJH not being drawn on that point. Time engaged on the telephone - 6 minutes".

87. When it was put to the Claimant that she knew her mother had made a will and that the Partners of Hunt & Wrigley were the executors, the Claimant stated that she did not know who the executors were and she did not know Mrs Gill had left her estate to the Third Defendant. The Claimant accepted she had made the statement - "obviously she would not want to be paying anything if everything had been left to the Dogs Home". Her evidence was that this was a chance expression she had used. It was made partly as a result of embarrassment and partially as a consequence of irritation. It was an unfortunate remark but the Claimant, when she uttered it, did not know the contents of Mrs Gill's will and did not know that she was not to be Mrs Gill's Executrix.
88. The Claimant did not accept that at the time of this telephone conversation she knew she was not going to inherit the Farm. She did not accept the suggestion that she did nothing on the strength and expectation that she would inherit the Farm because she knew that she was not going to. On the 23rd of August the Claimant met with Mr Hall at Hunt & Wrigley's premises and was told by him that she had not been provided for in the will of Mrs Gill. Upon Mrs TalbotRice putting it to the Claimant that her reaction to this statement was one of anger and confrontation, not one of shock and disbelief, the Claimant's evidence was that she was not angry, she was shocked and she was stunned. By the end of September 2006 the Claimant had written the document entitled Comments on the will of Mrs Gill. She had instructed Freeman Johnson solicitors on the 25th of August 2006. In the 56 pages of the document, dated the 29th of September 2006, there is no reference to any assurance or promise which had been made by either Mr Gill or Mrs Gill in relation to the Farm or anything else. The Claimant told the Court that Mrs Gill had assured her on several occasions - "she would have the Farm" and that she had said to her " you will always have the Farm". When the Claimant had left school and she was discussing with Mrs Gill her future, whether she should stay at home or whether to go to college. Mrs Gill had said - "whatever (the Claimant) did she would always have the Farm". When Mrs Talbot-Rice put it to the Claimant that Mrs Gill simply meant by this statement that the Claimant could always come back to the Farm, in other words she would always have somewhere to live, the Claimant responded that she did not believe Mrs Gill meant that because they were talking about how the Claimant would provide for herself. They were talking about livelihood; where the Claimant would get her income from, how she would provide for herself at pension age and all through her life. The idea that the Claimant would always have the Farm was one which meant as part of, at least, her livelihood she would have the Farm to rely upon. Similar conversations took place between Mrs Gill and the Claimant after the Claimant left University because where she was going to work and the job she chose to do were going to influence the Claimant's life. Mrs Gill made it clear that whatever the Claimant did she would always have the Farm to rely upon. In 1968 the Farm referred to was Brookfields. In the 1970s it was both Brookfields and the Farm and subsequently it was the Farm.
89. In April 1999 when Mr Gill was an in patient at the Friarage hospital he discussed with the Claimant what Mr Wardman would do on the Farm and how much income that would provide for Mrs Gill. The Claimant's evidence was that this implied to her that Mr Gill did not intend the Farm to be sold. Mr Gill's concern was that the Farm should carryon and the best way for it to proceed, according to him, was to renew Mr Wardman's contract.
90. The Claimant could not account for the contents of Mr Gill's will given the assurance he had made to the Claimant over the years in relation to the Farm.
91. The Claimant gave evidence that when she married Dr Baczkowski Mr Gill asked her - "will he make a Farmer?" and that this was a representation to her that she would inherit the Farm because it impliedly suggested that her husband was going to have a farmstead to Farm. It carried a specific interpretation to her that she and Dr Baczkowski would eventually be the Farmers. This was not the first assurance she had that she would inherit the Farm. In the 1970s Mrs Gill said to the Claimant - "it is a pity you couldn't marry the man next door because then we could put the two farms together and the farms would merge".
92. This, according to the Claimant, would only have been possible if Mr Gill had intended the Claimant to have the Farm. Another statement relied upon by the Claimant, as constituting a promise or an assurance that she would inherit the Farm, was a reference by Mr and Mrs Gill to White House Farm as - "your side of the Farm" which statement was consistent with the other assurances made to the Claimant by Mr and Mrs Gill and the conduct which they exhibited towards her.
93. When the Claimant was on maternity leave in 1997/1998 she had a discussion with Mrs Gill about whether she should return to full time or part time employment or give up work altogether. Mrs Gill could not see why the Claimant was worried about money given that the Claimant would have the Farm. This particular conversation had not been mentioned at any time prior to the Claimant's final witness statement dated the 8th. of July 2008 and the Claimant was cross examined in relation thereto. Mrs Talbot-Rice put it to the Claimant that this was just another example of the Claimant attributing her expectation to inherit the Farm to something Mrs Gill had said in the past when it was not attributable thereto but this suggestion by Mrs Talbot-Rice was not accepted by the Claimant.
94. After Mr Gill's death the Claimant was sorting through papers when she came across some drainage plans for the Farm. She told Mrs Gill of her discovery and Mrs Gill replied - "don't throw those away. You will need those. You ought to take them and keep them safe". The Claimant's evidence was that the purpose of keeping drainage plans was something that was long term. Drainage schemes are put in and, generally, last for 30 years. So for a long time drainage plans get packed away somewhere and forgotten about. However, Mrs Gill wanted the Claimant to have the plans. This was not because the Claimant was the main point of contact with Mr William Wardman but because Mrs Gill intended the Claimant to have the Farm. Mrs Gill had assured the Claimant she would have the Farm and the Claimant understood Mrs Gill to mean she would have the Farm. By giving the Claimant the drainage plans for the Farm Mrs Gill meant the Claimant to have them for when the Farm was hers. This, according to the Claimant's evidence, was a reassurance by Mrs Gill that the Claimant would inherit the Farm.
95. By the time Mr Gill died, Mrs Gill was nearly 75 years of age. From time to time Mrs Gill and the Claimant would discuss what might happen on the Farm in the future. In these conversations Mrs Gill would talk about preserving or doing things for the benefit of the family in the future and was keen to ensure that the Farm was to be maintained for future generations. An example of this was Mrs Gill's concern for 2 acres of woodland on the Farm and her request of the Claimant to - "sort out" those woodlands for the next generation. The suggestion by Mrs Talbot-Rice that Mrs Gill referred only to maintenance of the Farm and said nothing about future generations was rejected by the Claimant who pointed out that woodland is not something one deals with in one generation. Those who plant a woodland do not see it grown up. It is the next generation which does. Mrs Gill mentioned, on numerous occasions in conversations with the Claimant, that she wanted these woodland areas attended to and that they should be attended to for future generations.

96. Mrs Gill was keen for her grandson Christopher to take an interest in farming as detailed in paragraph 87 of the Claimant's witness statement dated the 8th of May 2008. On one occasion when Mrs Gill, and the Claimant, were talking about Christopher's future, Mrs Gill remarked - "I wonder what Christopher will do with the Farm". Mrs Talbot-Rice suggested that it was likely Mrs Gill had simply asked or wondered whether Christopher would go into farming. The Claimant's response was an emphatic non-acceptance of this suggestion and the assertion that Mrs Gill encouraged Christopher to take an interest in the Farm from being a very young child. On some occasions Mrs Gill would be musing about agriculture and the state of farming and said:-

    "I wonder what Christopher will do with the Farm".

97. The Claimant believed that this was an assurance to her that she would be left the Farm because if Christopher was to have it then the Claimant was to have it. Mrs Gill had assured the Claimant that she would get the Farm and the Claimant had every intention of passing on her estate to her son.
98. After Mr Gill died and again in the 2000s, Mrs Gill said to the Claimant