Case: Re Buckton (No 2) [1907] 2 Ch 406

Blades v Isaac [2016] EWHC 601 (Ch)

The claimant was a member of a class of objects of a discretionary trust created by the will of Valerie Mary Lee who died on 19 June 2013. The defendants, who were partners in Tanners Solicitors LLP, were the trustees (including the sole proving executor). The relationship between the claimant and her elder sister (who had been added to the class of potential beneficiaries after the death of their mother) was affected by a history of strains between members of the family. The first defendant proved the will on 28 January 2014 in relation to an estate valued at £903,574. The second defend...

National Westminster Bank v Lucas [2014] EWCA Civ 1632

Jimmy Savile died in October 2011. His will dated 24 July 2006 named NatWest as his executor and left the residue of his estate to the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (the trust) which he had created in 1984. Probate was obtained on 8 March 2012 with a net estate of £4.3m. The bank placed s27 Trustee Act adverts on 5 January 2012.

Following an ITV programme broadcast on 4 October 2012 accusing Mr Savile of being a serial sex offender, NatWest began to receive letters from potential claimants seeking compensation from the estate. NatWest quickly appreciated that the estate c...

Green v Astor & ors [2013] EWHC 1857 (Ch)

The judgment concerned the costs of an application by the administratrix of the aforesaid estate (the Maitland Estate) pursuant to CPR, Part 64.2(a). Apart from two charities, there were six beneficiaries of the residuary estate under the will of the deceased. The first defendant, a beneficiary and formerly an executor, was the only of the defendants to oppose the application. The parties’ overall legal costs incurred up to and including the hearing were over £900,000, a staggering figure for an application of this kind, especially where the aspect of the estate in issue was worth ...

Singapore Airlines Ltd & anr v Buck Consultants Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1542

Singapore Airlines Ltd (SA) brought proceedings against Buck Consultants Ltd (BC) alleging negligence in the drafting by BC of a revised version of the rules of SA’s pension scheme (scheme). A preliminary issue was tried concerning the meaning of ‘earnings’ for the purposes of the scheme. That preliminary issue had to be resolved for the purposes of SA’s negligence claim against BC. However, BC had also been appointed by the court to represent the interests of the members of the scheme on the preliminary issue.

Four issues were appealed by SA. Only Issue 4 ...