Canarapen v Gauchenot judgment: can you revoke a Deed of Variation based on a mistake?

Earlier this year, the High Court ruled in Canarapen v Gauchenot that a Deed of Variation was legally binding, despite the Defendant attempting to have it set aside.

In the judgment, the court favoured Jean-Michel Canarapen (the Claimant) over the validity of a disputed Deed of Variation (a legal document allowing amendments to an individual’s beneficial entitlement in a Will following the Testator’s death) against his aunt and solicitor, Marie Ginette Gauchenot (the Defendant), regarding his late grandmother’s estate (Brigitte Genevieve Maghoo).

Canarapen v Gauchenot: what happened?

Distribution of the Will

Brigitte died on 30^th July 2021, leaving a Will dated 16^th July 2009, where the Defendant was one of the beneficiaries and the sole executor and Trustee. It was stated in the Will that the residuary estate would be split into three equal shares between:

• Marie
• The Deceased’s daughter, Maria (Jean-Michel’s mother) and two of Maria’s five children in equal shares (excluding the Claimant)
• The Deceased’s daughter, Catherine and her children
  • However, Catherine pre-deceased Brigitte, so her daughters took her share

The value of the Deceased’s estate was £1,679,570, with the principal asset being her London home (the property) in which she resided. The property had five stories, and the basement flat and top floor were rented out.

Agreement reached after estranged nephew and aunt reconnect at funeral

Having not seen each other for several years, the Claimant and Defendant reconnected at the Deceased’s funeral in August 2021. The following month, the Claimant texted the Defendant about how they could keep the property in the family and prevent anybody from selling it. The Defendant indicated she was happy to speak about his idea.

The dispute

The Claimant and Defendant met at the property in October 2021, where the Claimant set out the idea of subdividing the property and renting the units to provide an income to the beneficiaries under the Will. The Defendant rejected this idea owing to her personal circumstances at the time.

The Defendant instead suggested the Claimant could buy the property from the estate, using the one-third share as security to get a commercial loan. Despite these ideas, no agreement was formally reached between the parties.

The Deed of Variation

In November 2021, the Defendant expressed to her solicitors that she wished to gift her one-third interest in the estate to the Claimant for the purpose of the property remaining ‘in the family’. She therefore instructed her solicitors to prepare a Deed of Variation, which was sent to and signed by the Claimant.

The Defendant and Claimant met in November 2022 to conclude plans for the renovation of the property. The Defendant was unhappy about the Claimant’s proposed plans for the property, which she had seen; however, she was “still happy for him to buy it”.

Attempt to revoke Deed of Variation

Dissatisfied with these plans, the Defendant attempted to revoke the Deed of Variation on the grounds of the Claimant’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentation (based on the Claimant and Defendant holding misaligned intentions for the property). The Defendant instead offered the Claimant an interest-free loan of one-third of the purchase price. This led to the Claimant bringing a claim against the Defendant, arguing the Deed of Variation was legal and binding, and could not be revoked.

Court proceedings

The High Court held the Deed was legally binding. However, the key question was whether the Defendant was entitled to set aside the Deed on the grounds of ‘mistake’.

It was the Defendant’s submission that there was a mistaken belief as to how the property would be managed by the Claimant. The Defendant shifted the nature of the mistake during proceedings from the belief that the family home would be preserved to the belief that the Claimant would purchase the property in part to allow the Defendant to live there. This wavering did the Defendant no favours.

Ultimately, it was found that there was no right to rescind the Deed based on the Defendant’s mistake. The judge stated that the mistake was more akin to a misprediction, which is not a sufficient reason to set aside the Deed.

Read the full Canarapen v Gauchenot [2025] EWHC 2728 (Ch) ruling here.

What we can learn from the Canarapen v Gauchenot case

This case highlights the importance of understanding implications and consequences when entering into any legally binding agreement, and in this case, a Deed of Variation. There should always be a wariness for entering into any verbal agreement which may not have any legal effect, but such vigilance should also be exercised with any written agreement.

Before considering signing any document, it is important to seek legal advice from a specialist solicitor who can go through the process step by step to ensure disputes will not arise in the future.

Contact our inheritance disputes solicitors

If a Deed of Variation dispute is causing a conflict in your family, our specialist inheritance disputes lawyers might be able to help. Call our team today on 0117 325 2929 or fill out our online enquiry form.