Richard Sprackling

Richard Sprackling’s will was a challenge waiting to be ignited.

Owner of the 105-acre Sandilands Farm, with its meat-processing and other businesses, Sprackling left the ‘farm’ to his 'adored' second wife Felicity.

In doing so, however, he left nothing at all to his three children - sons Simon and Shon, and daughter Joanna – from his first wife Ann, who died in 2000. Sprackling and his two sons worked together in the farming businesses.

Did he really mean to exclude the children entirely from his estate or, as they argued, was there a mistake in the will: the word ‘farm’ should have been ‘farmhouse?’

If they were correct, the farmhouse that Felicity Sprackling inherited would have included paddocks and an income-producing fishing lake that, worth more than £400,000, would have left her amply provided for, while leaving them the farming businesses and other assets.

Sprackling’s will was drawn up by a firm of solicitors, and was properly signed and witnessed.

But the circumstances behind his instructions to his solicitor, and the final reading and approval of the will, were tricky.

Approaching his 70th birthday, an ailing Sprackling learned that he had an inoperable brain tumour.

When drafting his new will, he instructed his solicitor – who took ‘attendance notes’ – from his bedside. This was barely a few days after entering hospital. And a few days after that, he read and approved the final draft while still in hospital. He also signed a Power of Attorney a mere week after entering hospital.

What were his actual instructions to the solicitor, who was a partner in the firm? Did he fully grasp what he was signing intellectually and emotionally?

And if, as his children contended, he intended to give his wife only the farmhouse and not the entire farm, was there any evidence to support this linguistic argument?

Who’s Who and What’s What?

Richard Sprackling was diagnosed with a brain tumour in September 2005. The tumour was aggressive, his illness was terminal, there was no cure, and his time was limited. He had an operation aimed at reducing the size of the tumour and perhaps extending his life, and improving its quality. He died in February 2006, less than six months after the diagnosis and his operation.

Richard's first wife, Ann, was the mother of his three children. Two years after she died, he married Felicity Ann Gonsalves, a plant scientist who became a solicitor in the early 1990s.

Richard's second marriage was successful. He truly 'adored' Felicity.

His business, on the other hand, had hit some rocky patches. Felicity claimed that her husband had more faith in her rather than his sons' business abilities, and he believed that the business would be better off entirely in her hands. She bolstered this assertion with the fact that his Power of Attorney gave authority exclusively to her and not to his sons. But in drawing considerable attention to the Power of Attorney, she ultimately did herself no favours.

'As is so frequently the case, there were mild tensions between the Deceased's second wife, and the children of his first marriage: but it is important not to over emphasise the significance of this feature.'

Mr Justice Norris

The critical clause in Richard's will consists of a single sentence:

"Provided my lovely wife Felicity survives me by 28 days to Felicity my property known as Sandilands Farm, Rogate aforesaid to include the fishing lake with access to the car park".

The terminology needs underlining : his will unambiguously refers to the 'Farm;' he also specifically includes the fishing lake and access.

But crucial clauses in other important documents support the contention of his children that their father used the terms 'farm' and 'farmhouse' interchangeably. He meant 'farmhouse' when he wrote 'farm,' they argued.

Here is an instance from one such document: "I Richard Noel Sprackling of Sandilands Farmhouse, Rogate…appoint my wife Felicity Ann Sprackling of Sandilands Farm, Rogate…".

‘Farmhouse’ and ‘Farm'! He does use these words interchangeably, and this usage is in the Power of Attorney, the very document that Felicity thought would bolster her case. It actually undermines her argument.

In addition to the wording in the Power of Attorney, the Court of Appeals relied on other written evidence, including a previous will, a 'holding' will and a draft will, as well as letters and other documents. Plenty of evidence showed that Sprackling intended to divide his estate – at least in these earlier documents. Even the very specificity of his will - leaving the farm with the fishing lake and access to the car park - lends weight to the argument that he intended to divide his estate. If he intended to leave it all to one person, he would not feel inclined to itemise its various bits and pieces.

Perhaps, knowing that he was nearing the end of his life, and having had some worrying moments with his business, he had changed his mind and wanted his widow to have it all?

The solicitor who drew up the will, Victoria Kenny, asserted that Sprackling wanted everything to go to Felicity, and her attendance notes presumably would supported her claim.

However, her attendance notes were silent on this crucial point.

Why did the solicitor fail to include such important material in her notes? Victoria Kenny said that she intentionally excluded it because the suggestion that the father had lost confidence in his sons' abilities to manage the business might upset the family. The judge wasn't convinced: attendance notes tend to remain private unless there is a legal challenge.

Beginning, Middle and End

By the time the case came to court, another serious illness - Kenny had suffered a stroke and spinal problems - provided further difficulties, but the judge nevertheless concluded: ‘Making every allowance I can for her health difficulties, I have nonetheless come to the view that she was not a satisfactory witness on whose evidence I could rely if unsupported by documents.’

The judge also determined that she had "a false memory, perhaps induced by the spectre of a half million pound negligence claim being brought against the firm."

The Court of Appeals tried to determine Richard Sprackling’s intentions up to the time he signed his final will, and the Court had little difficulty concluding that the testator intended to leave his wife only the farmhouse, not the entire farm.

But other evidence existed and while the Court came to its conclusion independently of this additional material, the Judge noted that it tended to confirm the Court's finding.

Indeed, some of this extraneous material is fascinating in its own right. For example, while Sprackling had the authority to dispose of the entire farm as he wished, Sandilands Farm originally had been inherited by his first wife.

The brothers had offered to settle the dispute via mediation - on four occasions. Felicity Sprackling turned down all four offers.

The judge also noted, parenthetically, that "upon the Deceased's death, Felicity telephoned Owen Kenny to express the hope that the attendance notes were 'robust'".

Richard's linguistic foibles may have been set right by the judge's careful research into his use of language, but neither the judge nor the testator could undo the fact that Richard left it very late before making his will. And the will he was capable of making at the time, given his medical condition, was limited to providing for his wife. He was hoping, he said while in hospital, that he would be able to make a more tax-efficient will after he left hospital.

He never did so. If he had, perhaps his linguistic inconsistencies would have been corrected in addition to his tax position being improved.