The High Court’s recent decision in Rahman v Hassan [2024] EWHC 1290 (Ch) sheds light on the intriguing concept of deathbed gifts (also known as ‘donatio mortis causa’) – which is a mechanism by which people can make gifts which will take effect on their death outside the provisions of their will or Intestacy Rules. This significant case adds clarity to a nuanced area of law, showing that the Courts are evolving with modern digital times and accepting the idea of deathbed gifts being valid in the form of a text message, provided conditions are met.
What makes a deathbed gift legally valid?
In order to be deemed valid, a number of conditions must be met:
- The person making the gift must contemplate his or her impending death.
- The gift must be clearly conditional upon the person’s death occurring.
- The person making the gift should deliver ‘dominion’ over the subject matter of the gift.
The claim
Mr Al Mahmood (‘the Deceased’) passed away on 23 October 2020, leaving an estate valued at £1.4m. Masadur Rahman (‘the Claimant’), who had assisted the Deceased and his wife as they aged, asserted that the Deceased had made deathbed gifts of all his UK assets to him. The defendants in the claim were relatives of the Deceased’s wife and beneficiaries of the Deceased’s previous 2015 Will.
The Deceased’s wife died on 6 October 2020 leaving her entire estate to the Deceased. The Deceased’s health was declining rapidly and instructed a Will draftsman, Mr Jonothan Amponsah, to draw up a new Will under which the Claimant was to be sole executor and beneficiary. Mr Amponsah told the High Court that he was due to visit a week later, but no witnesses were available and that he was unaware of the temporary pandemic rules that allowed Wills to be witnessed by video conferencing. On 22 October 2020, one day before his demise, the Deceased had sent a text message to his Will writer revoking his 2015 Will and naming the Claimant as the sole beneficiary, which read “I agreed that [the Claimant] will be the absolute own[er] of all my assets and the executor of my new and last will. This is my final word. I revoked all my previous will done by me and my wife[sic]. It’s a difficult time for me. Please help [the Claimant].” The Deceased’s estate comprised of chattels, bank accounts and registered land.
After the Deceased passed away, the Claimant sought to enforce his rights under the principle of deathbed gifts while the Defendants sought to challenge their validity. Nonetheless, the Court ruled in favour of the claimant ruling that the gift was made ‘in contemplation’ of death. His Honour Judge Paul Matthews explained that ‘Mr Al Mahmood believed he was dying and had given instructions to a professional Will-writer for a new Will. Unfortunately, this was during the Covid pandemic, and he became agitated because he had not received the new Will.’ He also added that ‘the whole point of the doctrine of [deathbed gifts] is to provide a legal solution to a human need, when other legal institutions do not’.
The Impact of this case
This case holds implications for both the legal landscape and the modern digital age. As more assets exist in digital form (e.g. cryptocurrency, online accounts, intellectual property), estate planning must adapt. Additionally, that as long as there is intention, parting with ‘dominion’ in contemplation of death that this expression of wishes can take many forms.
The High Court agreed to grant the Defendant’s permission to appeal on five grounds. One of the grounds which was given permission to go to appeal was that ‘the issues raised in this case regarding bank accounts and registered land are novel, and the decision in this case will set a precedent of importance’.
Contact our Litigation and Dispute Resolution experts
Nadine Esaid is a Solicitor in the Bishop & Sewell Litigation and Dispute Resolution team. If you would like to contact a member of the team please call on 020 7631 4141 or email nesaid@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 08 August 2024. The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
