Harrogate widow’s claim against Ramus estate rejected by judge

A high court judge has blocked a Harrogate widow’s attempt to receive a regular income from the estate of her late husband, a well-known businessman.

Christopher Ramus was found by a coroner to have taken his own life aged 72 following the breakdown of his 48-year marriage to Elizabeth Ramus, and difficulties in other relationships.

The couple were the founders of Ramus Seafood, which operated for many years from Kings Road until the couple sold it and retired. Despite their separation, Mr Ramus’s will still made provision for his wife, entitling her to an income from his estate for the rest of her life.

However, the income was at the discretion of the three trustees, including the couple’s daughter, Claire Holt, and two family friends. Mr Ramus wrote a letter of wishes in September 2019, stating:

“My current matrimonial circumstances are uncertain. If my wife survives me I still wish that she will have a right to income from the trust fund to the extent that it prevents hardship and enables her to maintain her lifestyle. I would like this to continue for as long as you feel necessary.

“If her own resources are such that she does not require that income then you should consider exercising your powers to remove her right to income in all or part of the Trust Fund.

“I do not wish for my wife to receive capital payments from the Trust Fund in order to protect the fund for future generations.”

The letter also made reference to the couple’s son, Alistair, saying:

“Whilst Alistair’s financial and business circumstances are not settled and do not have a firm footing, I do not wish for Alistair to receive capital payments from the Trust Fund. I would like you to consider making income payments to Alistair to prevent him from living in hardship, but not to fund an extravagant lifestyle.

“In regards to my daughter Claire I would like you to consider exercising your powers to benefit Claire, about whom I do not have the same concerns.”

Mrs Ramus took her daughter to the High Court under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, stating she did not want to be at the mercy of Mrs Holt, with whom she had a difficult relationship.

The hearing reflected the challenges between them, such as over the sale of the business premises on Kings Road.

Mrs Ramus and her daughter also disagreed over the home she would buy, with court documents showing Mrs Ramus wanted somewhere with enough space for visitors and a garden for her to enjoy. The documents stated:

“She did not want to live in a small house or flat which her daughter deemed ‘suitable for a lady of advanced years who lives on her own’ and again Mrs Ramus foresaw difficulties ahead with her daughter as trustee if she believed that her mother had unnecessarily spent money on a home which she considered to be too big.”

Read more:

Regular monthly income

Mrs Ramus, 77, had said in order to maintain her lifestyle, she would need a regular monthly income from Mr Ramus’s estate, otherwise she would use up her own assets and risk running out of money.

She submitted to the court a list of monthly outgoings which totalled more than £5,000, against income from pensions of £1,800 and other assets including bonds and ISAs.

However, sitting in Leeds, Judge Mark West found Mrs Ramus’s own assets of more than £1.6m were significantly more than the value of Mr Ramus’s estate, at just under £1.1m. He said:

“Standing back and looking at the matter in the round, this is a case of an applicant who in all likelihood would not have received anything on divorce, and who, even after the purchase of a three-bedroomed house for £750,000, would have financial autonomy and still have net assets not far short of £900,000.

“In addition, her case was that she requires a monthly income to enable her to pay her outgoings without using the capital which would be left after her purchase of a new home.

“For these reasons, and taking into account all of the relevant factors… I am satisfied that the disposition of Mr Ramus’s estate under the terms of his will is such as to make financial provision for Mrs Ramus in the circumstance of the case and that the claim fails.”

Harrogate councillors were ‘legally obliged’ to reconsider Flaxby site, High Court told

Harrogate Borough Council did not fulfil its legal obligation to fully consider Flaxby as a reasonable alternative to Green Hammerton as the site of a major new settlement, the High Court was told today.

Christopher Katkowski QC, representing Flaxby Park Ltd, made the claim on the third and final day of a judicial review between the developer and the council.

A judgement will be handed down at a later date.

Flaxby claims the council’s decision to choose Green Hammerton for 3,000 homes was based on a flawed process.

Mr Katkowski said the developer’s claim was “straightforward and simple” — that councillors “at some point” should have considered the Flaxby site after council officers assessed it a second time.

Instead the matter was dealt with by council officers.

Mr Katkowski told the court:

“Members were legally obliged to consider Flaxby as a broad location and reasonable alternative to Green Hammerton as a broad location. 

“They never did at the bookends or at any point in between.”

Mr Katkowski said the developer accepted that councillors “could not do the work” of the assessment, but added that what mattered was “what you do with the work when it is done”.

Read more:

The court also heard that the planning inspector’s report, which councillors considered before they adopted the district’s local plan, was “not a substitute” for the second assessment.

Mr Katkowski said councillors should have had the second assessment in front of them and that the report was not a substitute “as a matter of law”.

The council claims it acted lawfully in the decision-making process.

The council’s defence made submissions yesterday that there was no legal reason for officers to return the second assessment of the two sites to councillors.

Paul Brown QC, representing the council, told the court that officers had delegated powers, which covered work such as assessments and modifications to the plan.

He said they were not “legally required” to check further with councillors after carrying out the work.

Mr Justice Holgate closed the judicial review hearing, which was held remotely due to coronavirus, this afternoon and will now consider his verdict.

 

Harrogate council acted lawfully in Green Hammerton case, High Court told

Harrogate Borough Council officers acted lawfully when they chose to pick Green Hammerton over Flaxby for its local plan, London’s High Court was told today.

Paul Brown QC, representing the authority at the judicial review, outlined the council’s defence to claimants Flaxby Park Ltd on the second day of the hearing.

Flaxby claimed yesterday the council made insufficient comparisons between the two sites, that further assessments were not brought back before councillors and questioned the viability of the site.

But Mr Brown told the court there was no legal reason for officers to return a further assessment of the two sites to councillors.

He said officers had already been delegated powers, which covered assessments and modifications to the plan, and they were not “legally required” to check further with councillors after carrying out the work.

Read more:

Mr Brown said:

“It is patently not a matter which members would have been competent to carry out themselves.

“In a world where officers had delegated authority to agree modifications, it would be perverse to check with members before deciding that no modification [to the local plan] was required.”

‘Entirely lawful’

Mr Brown said the council’s decision not to assess a “broad location” for Flaxby before the local plan was submitted for examination was “an entirely lawful one to take”.

The council ultimately carried out the further assessment after the planning inspector said the move would be “sensible” and not that it was legally required, Mr Brown added.

He said the assessment was then given to the inspector and the inspector’s final report, which included the additional work, was considered by councillors before the local plan was adopted.

The court also heard that there was “no unequal treatment” between Flaxby and Green Hammerton and that the two were considered by officers throughout the process.

Flaxby limitations

Mr Brown said the “like for like” comparison was completed and limitations of the Flaxby site had been made clear since July 2017.

Addressing the clam that the planning inspector’s conclusion on viability was “perverse”, Mr Brown said the judgement was a “matter for the inspector”.

The court also heard that the council looked at the viability of both sites and each developer was spoken to and “treated on a like for like basis”.

Christopher Katkowski QC, representing Flaxby Park Ltd, will respond to the council’s defence tomorrow.

The hearing is expected to conclude tomorrow.

High Court hearing opens into Green Hammerton homes

A High Court hearing into Harrogate Borough Council’s decision to pick Green Hammerton over Flaxby for its local plan has begun today.

Mr Justice Holgate opened the judicial review case, which is being held remotely due to coronavirus.

Representing the developer, Christopher Katkowski QC set out his submission that sufficient comparisons were not made for both sites early on and that assessments did not show that the Green Hammerton site was viable.

He said that the Flaxby site was not given “equal treatment” to the council’s eventual preferred option of Green Hammerton.

Mr Katkowski said there was no “apples and apples” sustainability assessment of the sites as “broad locations” before the local plan was submitted for examination to the planning inspector.

Read more:

He told the hearing that, despite the comparison being made later, the work was carried out under officer delegation and was not put before councillors to reconsider.

He said:

“Councillors should have been given the opportunity to consider this work at a stage when it could have made a difference.”

Mr Katkowski also told the court that assessments in front of the inspector showed the Green Hammerton location was “marginal” in terms of viability.

He added that Oakgate, one of the promoters of the site, had submitted a confidential assessment to the council but this was not put in front of the inspector.

Mr Katkowski said it was either “perverse” that the inspector concluded that the site was viable with the information available to him or “perverse not to call for sight of the assessments to reach a properly informed judgement”.

Paul Brown QC, representing Harrogate Borough Council, said officers had delegated powers “through the examination period” up until the inspector’s report was returned to the council.

Mr Brown said both the submission of the plan and the adoption were made by councillors, but delegated powers would need to be used for other decisions for practicality reasons.

He said:

“It does not follow that because the process is bookended by those two decisions that everything between those points must be.”

Mr Brown added that planning officers considered both sites following the second comparison and other reasonable alternatives.

He said his “overarching submission” was that there was nothing unlawful in the delegation of powers to officers.

Mr Brown will continue his submission tomorrow (October 28). The hearing continues.