Thakare & ors v Bhusate [2020] WTLR 691

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2020 #179

A widow brought a claim for reasonable financial provision to be made for her from her late husband’s estate. The claim was brought 25 years and nine months after the six-month time limit mandated by s4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

At first instance Chief Master Marsh, exercising the broad discretion afforded by s4 of the 1975 Act, gave permission for the claim to be brought, notwithstanding the extremely long time since the six-month period had expired: see Bhusate v Patel.

The facts of the...

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

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2013 #126

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 ...

Costs: It’s not winning but taking part that counts

Mark Surguy looks at the costs consequences of not quite winning The trial judge decided that that the notion of ‘success’ depended on who was paying money to whom at the end of the case. He did not think that the claimant had exaggerated his case and felt he had reasonably relied on expert evidence. …
This post is only available to members.