- Everything (74)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (0)
- Article (0)
- Case note (27)
- News (6)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (0)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (0)
- Judgment (41)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- An executor, the younger brother of the deceased, had appealed against an order for him to exhibit on oath a true and perfect inventory of the estate and an account of its administration. The respondents to the appeal were the deceased's widow and three children from his first marriage. The appeal was dismissed, and in this judgment MacDonald J dealt with whether those costs should be assessed on the standard or the indemnity basis, and the quantum of the costs. He decided that the executor should pay the costs of the respondents on an indemnity basis in the sum of £27,818.92 plus VAT. After delaying for over a decade, the executor had put the respondents to further expense, delay and inconvenience by requiring them to meet an appeal of dubious merit. This was a clear case for the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis. Judgment, 16/12/2020, free
- An application for interim provision pursuant to section 5 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. It was clear to Francis J that he had the discretion to order both periodic payments and lump sum payments to the widow, the husband's second wife, and he ordered payments of £5200 a month to be made until the case settled. The first and second defendants undertook to make no further distributions to the beneficiaries from the estate until the conclusion of the claim. Francis J also expressed concern about the level of costs incurred with regard to the application. Judgment, 18/12/2019, free
- The father left the entirety of his estate to his daughter. No provision was made for his wife, who was applying for permission to bring a claim out of time under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Floyd LJ held that the judgment of the district judge in the case had been flawed to the extent that an appellate court was entitled to interfere. The district judge wrongly discounted the fact that the wife risked losing her home if the extension of time was refused, and wrongly weighed in the balance the failings of the wife's solicitors. King LJ and Henderson LJ agreed, and the court exercised its discretion to extend time. Judgment, 30/10/2019, free
- The couple married in 2016 after a long relationship, and the husband died later that year. The appeal was concerned with whether an application under s 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 could be made out of time, whether a beneficial interest under a discretionary trust instead of outright provision amounted to reasonable financial provision, and the relevance of a "stand-still agreement" in place while an out of court settlement was pursued. Asplin LJ found that the explanation for the lapse of time in this case was clear, and it had been wrong of the judge to find that the wife had received sufficient advice about the time limit and the 1975 Act. King LJ and Baker LJ agreed. The court exercised the power in s 4 of the 1975 Act to allow the wife to bring a claim out of time. Judgment, 31/07/2019, free
- The former wife sought permission to bring a claim out of time for reasonable financial provision from the estate of the deceased. No provision had been made for her in the will, and a pre-nuptual agreement had provided that in the event of the marriage failing she would receive a lump sum of £10,000 and a flight to the Philippines, but no maintenance, property or financial provision. Master Shuman found that the former wife had not given a sufficent explanation for the delay, and decided that permission should not be granted. Judgment, 30/07/2019, free
- The widow brought claims against the two daughters of her deceased husband. Deputy Master Linwood found that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for her, and awarded the widow her proposed nursing home charges plus an amount for pension loss, totalling £731,309. One daughter’s conduct included financial abuse, oppression via court proceedings, and attempting to mislead various parties including the court. She had flouted court orders, dissipated savings and investments, and failed to account for her activities as executor, the holder of the power of attorney and the recipient of rent. He drew adverse inferences against her and found that she should forfeit £80,000 of her share of the residue to the widow. The other daughter would forfeit £1000. Judgment, 08/07/2019, free
- Kate Strange, Pupil, 1 Hare Court, discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Habberfield v Habberfield. Case note, 07/06/2019, members only
- Widow's out of time application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 in circumstances where provision for her had been made by way of 2 trusts. The application was refused. Judgment, 05/03/2019, free
- In brief: Here the defendant had applied for an adjournment of the trial. However, the medical evidence supporting her application was erroneously not shown to the trial judge, the defendant did not turn up, he refused to adjourn and an order was made in the claimants’ favour (the estate was split £69,000 to the defendant and £630,000 to the claimants). On appeal it was found that the defendant had not actually made an application under r.39.3(5) CPR 1998 and had in any event not satisfied the three criteria under r.39.3 needed to make a successful application to set aside a judgment. The judgment could not be set aside. In terms of the appeal against the substantive award, the court concluded that there was no basis for interfering with it save to the extent that fresh evidence that wad admitted modestly reduced the award made to the original claimants. Judgment, 22/10/2018, free
- The claimant was the third wife of the deceased (who died in 1990) and was making three primary claims: (1) that she was now the sole beneficial owner of the property; (2) in the alternative, that she and the defendants (the deceased's children from his first marriage) became equitable co-owners of the property; (3) in the further alternative, she said that she was entitled, as against the deceased's estate, to her statutory legacy and a capitalised life interest, plus interest at 6% per annum since the date of his death. Judgment, 14/09/2018, free