A solicitor who failed with a High Court claim regarding possession of a Grade-I listed home was back in court this week over non-payment of a £725,000 costs order.

Sitting in the Rolls before Master Kaye, the hearing followed a judgment handed down in February 2023 which saw former High Commissioner to Sri Lanka David Gladstone win his case against solicitor Leigh Elaine Anna White.

Gladstone was awarded an order for possession of stately home Wotton House, estimated to be worth between £10m and £15m. The judgment also found that the assignment of six investment assurance bonds were ‘procured by undue influence’ and must be set aside.

Gladstone and White had been friends and the earlier trial heard that he regarded her as a ‘surrogate daughter’. Gladstone moved out of the mansion to shield from Covid with his wife, and White moved in. Gladstone wanted to return to Wotton but White refused to leave, and after a breakdown of their friendship he issued a claim for possession.

White counterclaimed for a declaration that she be entitled to remain. She said Gladstone had made promises that Wotton would be hers after his death, arguing that she had equity under the principles of proprietary estoppel.

Following judgment, White gave up possession of Wotton but, according to court documents, Gladstone ‘has not received a penny from Ms White since the order was made, and continues to incur the costs of attempting to enforce it’.

The court heard from White, who represented herself, that she had ‘no money’.

Master Kaye, giving judgment after hearing, said: ‘Miss White’s evidence including her very late witness statement served after hours yesterday is markedly inefficient and provides very limited clarity on what the true position is in relation to her financial position.

‘The base line is that she owes £725,000 plus interest. She will owe more in due course and that, despite the fact that these orders were made as long ago as February, she has not only not paid anything but, as it appears, resisted the applications and orders set so far to seek to enforce.

‘It was only very late…she evidently agreed to the charging orders. She had intended to oppose them.

‘Taking into account that she is unrepresented, while not a litigation solicitor, she is an experienced lawyer with a long history of working in high profile areas. The provision of witness statements setting out in clear and coherent terms the matter of her assets…and making her case that she has an inability to pay is well within her scope of abilities, and something she ought to be able to provide to this court.

‘Having considered all of these matters, it seems to me the evidence and support of application for a stay simply does not amount sufficiently to justify special circumstances.’

She added: ‘I am not satisfied the evidence [White] has filed in this court…comes close to presenting she is not able to pay the sums she is due to pay. I therefore refuse her application for a stay in relation to writ of control.

‘However, it does need to be amended before it can be enforced to correct the figures on it. That may provide a little more time for Miss White to consider carefully what steps she wants to take to seek to make payment in relation to the agreement.

‘I am not staying the application as such so her application fails.’

A costs order was also made against White for a total sum of £12,000.

 

This article is now closed for comment.