When a residuary beneficiary refuses to engage: guidance from Lowe v Daniells [2025]

The recent High Court decision in Lowe v Daniells [2025] EWHC 3297 (Ch) provides valuable guidance for personal representatives and practitioners faced with a residuary beneficiary who declines to engage with the administration of an estate.

Background

The deceased, Jean Phyllis Norman, died in 2018, leaving her granddaughter, Lucy Daniells, as the residuary beneficiary under her will, with two substitutes named should Lucy’s gift fail.  Despite numerous attempts by the administrator to contact Lucy – by post, email, and even process server – she refused to cooperate, expressing distrust and declining to provide identification or sign a deed of renunciation.  

The administrator, having completed all other aspects of the estate administration, sought the court’s direction regarding the distribution of the residue, approximately £185,000.

The legal issues

The central question was whether Lucy’s conduct amounted to a disclaimer of her entitlement.  The court reviewed the law of disclaimer, confirming that a gift vests immediately but may be repudiated once the beneficiary is aware of it.  There was no evidence of incapacity or delusion; Lucy’s refusal was based on a mistaken belief that there were no funds for her.

A procedural issue also arose: only the administrator and Lucy were parties to the claim, not the substitute beneficiaries.  The court declined to declare a disclaimer, noting that the substitutes should have been joined if such a declaration was sought.

The court’s approach

The court considered two main options:

1. Permitting the administrator to pay the funds into court, which would protect the administrator but require the substitutes to bring further proceedings; or
2. Making a Re Benjamin order, allowing the administrator to distribute the residue as if Lucy had disclaimed, while preserving her right to claim against the substitutes if she later engaged.

The court preferred the second option, making a Re Benjamin order.  This protected the administrator from future liability but did not extinguish Lucy’s rights, should she choose to assert them in the future.

Conclusion

Lowe v Daniells demonstrates the court’s pragmatic approach to resolving estate administration challenges where a beneficiary is unresponsive.  The decision provides reassurance for personal representatives and highlights the importance of procedural care and early engagement with the court where necessary.