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 a widow in May 2018, leaving her residuary estate under her Will to her granddaughter, Lucy Daniells, with two substitutes named should Lucy’s gift fail.  

The claimant, a partner in a local law firm, wrote to Ms Daniells in November 2018 setting out her interest in the estate, and asking her to confirm her identity, but no response was provided.  The claimant wrote again in February 2019, this time by recorded delivery, and it was signed for but still no response.    

After a further three letters giving more details about the Will, valuing the residuary estate at c.£200,000, and explaining that Ms Daniells was entitled to take out a Grant and if she did not wish to do so she should sign a deed of renunciation, Ms Daniells replied accusing the claimant of harassment.    

There followed a chain of email correspondence between the claimant and Ms Daniells where it became clear that Ms Daniells was convinced the claimant acted for members of the family (despite the claimant clarifying that she did not) and was not willing to accept that she was entitled to assets.

As a final attempt, the claimant instructed a process server to deliver a deed of renunciation to Ms Daniells for signing.  Ms Daniells refused to accept the document, explaining to the process server that she believed there were no funds in the estate available to her, and that she did not wish to discuss the matter further. 

In May 2021, the claimant applied herself for a grant of letters of administration with will annexed.

Once she had completed all other aspects of the estate administration, the claimant made one final effort to contact Ms Daniells in March 2023, informing her that nearly £185,000 was due to her, but that identity checks would need to be carried out.  Ms Daniells did not respond to this, nor to a process servers attempts to contact her in May 2023 and June 2023. 

In August 2025, the claimant issued a claim for a court direction regarding the distribution of the residue.

The legal issues

The central question was whether Ms Daniells' conduct amounted to a disclaimer of her entitlement.  The court reviewed the law of disclaimer, confirming that a gift under a will vests immediately upon the testator's death but may be repudiated once the beneficiary is aware of it.  

The Judge considered whether Ms Daniells' refusal to engage with the administration and accept that she was entitled to the residue was based on an 'illusory belief', which would mean that she essentially lacked capacity to reject the gift.  

A procedural issue also arose; only the administrator and Ms Daniell 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 Judge found that Ms Daniells' refusal was based on a mistaken belief that there were no funds for her, but this was caused by sheer ignorance of the facts, which had been explained to her at great length, and so did not amount to a lack of capacity.

As such, the court considered two main options to facilitate the distribution of the estate:

1. Permitting the claimant to pay the funds into court, which would protect her as administrator but require the substitutes to bring further proceedings; or

2. Making a kind of Re Benjamin order, which is an order enabling trust property to be distributed according to the facts as they appear.  This would protect the claimant from a breach of duty claim, as she would be acting under the authority of a court order, whilst preserving the substitutes' entitlement to the estate if they later appeal the distribution.

The court preferred the second option, making a Re Benjamin order.  

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.