The claimant was the daughter of the deceased. The defendant was said to have been in a relationship with the deceased. The deceased appointed the defendant along with two others as executors of his will. He also devised a freehold commercial property and £75,000 to the defendant. The residue of the estate was to be divided equally between the claimant and her two siblings. The claimant disputed the validity of the will.
On 6 May 2021, after a chain of correspondence, the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors on an open basis setting out various detailed points...
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 (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 ...
Continue reading "Costs: It’s not winning but taking part that counts"