High Court examines estate dispute in Nattachai vs Burrage

High Court examines estate dispute in Nattachai vs Burrage

The High Court has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Kanokporn Nattachai vs Simon and David Burrage, concerning an estate dispute following the death of Roger Burrage. The case, presided over by Master Clark, involved complex claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and proprietary estoppel.

The claimant, Kanokporn Nattachai, alleged a long-term relationship with the deceased, Roger Burrage, and sought financial provision from his estate. The defendants, Simon and David Burrage, were the executors and sole beneficiaries under their father's will. The estate's assets included a flat, cash in bank accounts, and a car, with a net value of £420,924. Additionally, there were disputed assets in Thailand and Singapore.

The claimant's case was based on several grounds, including a claim for maintenance under the 1975 Act, repayment of a significant loan, and a proprietary interest in the estate. The defendants filed an application for security for costs, arguing that the claimant, residing outside the jurisdiction, posed a risk of non-payment of costs if unsuccessful.

Master Clark examined the legal principles surrounding security for costs, particularly focusing on whether such an order would stifle the claimant's ability to pursue her claim. The court referenced key legal precedents, including the burden on the claimant to demonstrate that providing security would stifle her claim.

The claimant's financial situation was scrutinised, with evidence presented regarding her income, assets, and the financial support she could potentially secure. However, inconsistencies in her financial disclosures led the court to question the completeness and accuracy of her evidence.

Ultimately, the court determined that the claimant's evidence was insufficient to prove that a security order exceeding £30,000 would stifle her claim. Master Clark emphasised the need for full, frank, and unequivocal evidence, which the claimant failed to provide.

The court also considered the appropriate amount of security, taking into account the defendants' costs budget and the claimant's ability to raise funds. The defendants' costs were deemed disproportionate relative to the claim's value, prompting the court to manage the costs budget at a future hearing.

This case highlights the complexities of estate disputes involving international elements and the careful consideration required in applications for security for costs. The judgment underscores the importance of comprehensive financial disclosure by claimants seeking to oppose such applications.

Learn More

For more information on inheritance disputes and related legal principles, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.

Copyright & permissions