Bhusate v Patel & ors [2019] WTLR 393

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2019 #175

The claim related to the estate of Mr Bhusate who died on 28 April 1990. His first wife (Mrs Bhusate) had died in 1971. The 1st to 5th defendants were Mr Bhusate’s children by his marriage to Mrs Bhusate. The claimant was his third wife. The 6th defendant was the only child of Mr Bhusate and the claimant.

Mr Bhusate died intestate. Letters of administration were granted to the claimant and the 1st defendant on 12 August 1991. The estate principally comprised a property in London where the claimant and Mr Bhusate lived (the property). The property remained registered in Mr Bhusate’...

Constructive Trusts: More than words?

The courts will sometimes give effect to oral agreements for the transfer of land. David Sawtell examines recent case law ‘The courts have afforded some considerable protection to trustees and beneficiaries of land from the inadvertent creation of informal rights over property. The unanimity principle has achieved some prominence as a consequence.’ In order to …
This post is only available to members.

Preedy & anr v Dunne & ors [2015] EWHC 2713 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2015 #155

This claim concerned a property. The freehold had belonged legally and beneficially to J who had run a business of a pub and restaurant from the property in partnership with her husband B. J died in 1997. On her death the property passed by her will to her executors and trustees, essentially for the benefit of B for his life and, subject to B’s interest, for J’s three children in equal shares (the will trust).

The claimants were the current trustees of the will trust and hence the legal owners of the freehold of the property. The first defendant was J’s son (one of the beneficiari...

Proprietary Estoppel: Words and deeds

Andrea Zavos and Will Twidale analyse a proprietary estoppel claim against trustees ‘Sir William Blackburne said that the question before him was whether it was sufficiently pleaded that Mr Jodrell was the agent at all of his co-trustees, in the sense that they authorised him to make the representations in question on their behalf.’ In …
This post is only available to members.