A seven year dispute regarding the estate of so-called ‘Car Boot King’ Richard Scott has come to an end with the high court dismissing both a proprietary estoppel claim, and challenges to the validity of the final two Wills drafted by my Scott. 

A third claim, relating to tenancies granted to his son during the life of Mr Scott, were found to be genuine and not ‘shams’ as alleged by Mr Scott’s wife, and was dismissed by Mr Justice Richards.

The case of ‘Adam Clive Scott -v- the estate of Richard Norman Scott and others‘ relates to the estate of Richard Scott, a successful businessman, described as a ‘mercurial character’ and ‘ruthless, single-minded’ in previous proceedings, who built up a valuable property empire, before switching to running giant and lucrative car boot sales. Through three romantic relationships Scott fathered 19 children; six children with his first wife, plus six illegitimate children during that relationship before meeting Jennifer Scott while she was working as his cleaner, beginning a relationship in 1994. They subsequently had a further seven children.

In 2016 Mr Scott married Jennifer despite protestations from his second eldest son, Adam, who claimed his father didn’t have the mental capacity to marry such was the development of his dementia. Two months after the marriage Richard signed two disputed wills which disinherited Adam and left Jennifer executor and a major beneficiary.

The claim was brought by Adam Scott who said his father had promised him the farm, alleging the final two Wills signed toward the end of Richard Scott’s life were invalid because his father lacked capacity at the time of them being drafted.

Following a 14 day trial both claims were dismissed. Mr Justice Richards concluded that, following the development of his relationship with Jennifer and the expansion of his family to 19 children, Richard no longer intended to stand by the promises made to Adam in the mid-1990s. Adam also accumulated significant personal wealth from working on the farm, which meant he had not suffered a net detriment.

Mr Justice Richards also upheld the validity of Richard’s last two wills, accepting expert medical evidence that, despite speech difficulties linked to his dementia, Richard had capacity when making them. His decision to completely exclude Adam Scott was found to be rational, supported by the fact the Adam had tried to prevent his marriage to Jennifer, tried to section him, and reported him to social services.

In coming to his decision, Justice Richards found that Richard Scott’s promises were properly withdrawn, that Adam Scott had suffered no ‘net detriment’ in relying on them and in any event the resultant situation Adam finds himself in is not unconscionable. The 2016 Wills were found to be validly executed and Richard to have knowledge and approval of their terms. The tenancies, which Jennifer Scott claimed were

“devices to facilitate holding more car boot sales on the land, to allow Adam to take out insurance in his name (where it was difficult for Richard to do so due to his previous conviction for arson as part of attempted insurance fraud), and to help Adam secure planning permission for a house”

were not “shams” but were genuine due to the timings of them before the car boot business took off and planning permissions for a property to be built being awarded some five years before.

Acting for defendant Jennifer Scott, Eleanor Stenson, a partner at IDR Law said

“This was a complex and sensitive case touching on family relationships over many decades, questions of fairness and the principle of testamentary freedom.” We are pleased that the Judgment provides clarity on the legal principles in issue and reinforces the careful approach needed in assessing such claims.”

“IDR Law is delighted to have supported Jennifer through this process and to have secured this result for her. We extend our sincere thanks to Leading Counsel, Alex Troup KC who was assisted by Daniel Soar of St John’s Chambers, for their exceptional work throughout the proceedings.”

\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\”,\”body\”:\”\”,\”footer\”:\”\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\”},\”strict\”:{\”header\”:\”\”,\”body\”:\”\”,\”footer\”:\”\”},\”advanced\”:{\”header\”:\”\”,\”body\”:\”\”,\”footer\”:\”\”}}”,”gdpr_scor”:”true”,”wp_lang”:””,”wp_consent_api”:”false”,”gdpr_nonce”:”4f30f8a7a9″};