No fishing for disclosure orders in proving undue influence through bank records

The High Court recently heard an application for non-party disclosure in a significant claim concerning allegations of undue influence over a deceased individual's financial affairs.

Background:

The claimant is the estate of Daniel Truell, who died at the age of 55 on 29 September 2019. Mr. Truell was the Chief Investment Officer (CIO) and Managing Partner of the Wellcome Trust until his retirement due to ill health in 2017. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2012, later refined to a form of motor neuron disease. The claimant alleges he was alcohol-dependent and a vulnerable person, with his health deteriorating significantly from 2015 until he became bedbound in 2017. The current sole claimant is his brother, Edmund Truell, following the death of the second claimant in early 2025.

The defendant was originally Magdalena Zalinska, with whom Mr. Truell had a disputed relationship. She died on 11 March 2023, and her daughter, Ms. Aleksandra Zalinska, is now the defendant in the proceedings, acting under a limited grant. 

The claim is for approximately £4m, alleging that Magdalena Zalinska obtained money and assets from Mr. Truell through undue influence and/or breach of fiduciary duty due to a relationship of trust and confidence.

The challenged transactions include: 

• Around £1.34m paid to Magfos Ltd., a company controlled by Magdalena Zalinska, which operated a nightclub between November 2013 and September 2018.
• Around £915,000 in direct transfers from Mr. Truell to Ms. Zalinska between June 2012 and September 2019. 
• Approximately £950,000 in cash withdrawals and £416,000 in debit card spending, which is said to have been under the control of Ms. Zalinska and not for Mr. Truell's benefit, a pattern of spending that increased significantly as his health declined.

The transfer of Mr. Truell's reversionary interest in a property to Magdalena Zalinska on 4 March 2019.

The respondent to the non-party disclosure application is Union Bancaire Privée (UK) Ltd., referred to as "the Bank," with whom Mr. Truell had a longstanding business relationship.

The claim was issued in July 2020, and the initial trial date was vacated, although it was finally heard in July 2025. The Bank had previously provided some voluntary disclosure but ceased further production, requiring a court order.

Decision: 

The High Court dismissed the non-party disclosure application due to the failure of the claimant to satisfy both limbs of Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) rule 31.17(3). The Judge cited some fundamental flaws in how the application was prepared and pursued, and the failure to address the test of necessity in CPR 31.17(3)(b). 

The Court found that there was no explanation about the overlap in the documentation within the claimant’s possession. Moreover, the claimant’s solicitors had failed to properly review documents voluntarily provided by the Bank in October 2024, mistakenly believing they only related to certain accounts. 

Regarding the policy documents, the Judge found these documents are "too far removed" from the actual dealings between Mr. Truell and Magdalena Zalinska. Policy documents show what the Bank ought to have done, not what actually happened, and this is not a claim against the Bank itself.

While acknowledging the possibility that these records might shed some light on undue influence, the Bank's internal view is deemed "peripheral" to the central issue of how and why the transactions occurred between Mr. Truell and Ms. Zalinska. The direct transactions are not in doubt, although the claim is in essence about the nature of the relationship.

Implications:

This case has significant implications for probate claims, especially those involving allegations of undue influence or other challenges to the deceased's financial dealings before death. While not a will validity case in itself, the ruling directly impacts the ability of an estate (or its beneficiaries) to gather evidence to pursue claims related to the deceased's assets, which can then have a profound effect on the ultimate distribution of the estate. 

This judgement serves as a strong reminder that CPR 31.17 (pertaining to non-party disclosure) will be applied rigorously in the High Court, even in emotionally charged cases involving estates and vulnerable individuals. The requirement that disclosure must be "necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs" (CPR 31.17(3)(b)) is crucial. Simply asserting that documents might be helpful or might lead to a train of inquiry is insufficient. Courts will be highly reluctant to grant broad "fishing" disclosure orders that impose an undue burden on non-parties, especially when their relevance is peripheral to the core issues.