OH v Craven
 [2018] WTLR 275

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

Two applications were before the Court, involving the proceeds of personal injury actions that had been paid into the Court Funds Office following compromises. During each action and its compromise, the claimant was represented by a litigation friend: for OH, as a minor, and for AKB, lacking in litigation capacity.

OH’s litigation friend applied to the Court for payment of the proceeds of his compromise (just under £2m) to a trustee to hold them on the terms of a bare trust for his benefit. The trustee was to be a trust corporation that was incorporated and operated by his litigat...

Pre-Nuptials: No excuses

Camilla Thornton examines case law post-Radmacher where a party has sought to overturn the terms of a nuptial agreement ‘Only in cases where the parties’ circumstances have changed in a way that was not anticipated will the courts look carefully at the fairness of justifying a pre-nuptial agreement entered into some time ago.’ It has …
This post is only available to members.

Crossfield v Jackson [2014] EWCA Civ 1548

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2015 #154

The dispute between the parties concerned the ownership of a four-bedroom London apartment (the property). Monica Elaine Crossfield (the appellant) had become the council tenant of the property in 1987 under a secure tenancy with the London Borough of Lambeth (LBC). By a lease dated 26 August 2003 (the lease), LBC demised the property to her for a term of 125 years in consideration of a premium of £109,500 (the premium). The premium was calculated by the market value of the property, minus a right to buy discount by virtue of the appellant being a secure tenant. The premium was provided ...

Kicks v Leigh [2014] EWHC 3926 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | May 2015 #149

Joyce Smith (Mrs Smith) lived at 49 Home Close, Wolvercote, Oxford (property). She had two daughters, the late Norma Kicks who died in January 2004, and the defendant. After her daughter’s death, Mrs Smith changed her will (will) in February 2008 and gave her entire net estate to the defendant, whom she had appointed sole executrix and trustee, to hold as to 50% for the defendant and 50% equally between Mrs Smith’s four grandchildren. The claimants were the two children of the late Norma Kicks. Mrs Smith’s health began to decline from November 2008. The defendant and her husband, who liv...

Undue Influence: Follow your nose

Amanda Noyce examines Hart v Burbidge [2014] and its lessons on the presumption of undue influence and lifetime gifts ‘Although the law of undue influence in relation to probate cases is a difficult hurdle to overcome, the law relating to lifetime gifts, where the donor may (or may not) now happen to be dead, may …
This post is only available to members.

Negligence: A cautionary tale

In the first of a two-part analysis Julian Bremner highlights the potential pitfalls of offering free-of-charge interviews and failing to fully explore a client’s options ‘The appeal court disposed very swiftly of the argument that as this short meeting had not been charged for this somehow decreased the firm’s obligations. The court found that a …
This post is only available to members.

Hart & anr v Burbidge & anr

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

In 2006 the deceased made a will directing a sale of two properties, No 7 and No 43 (the properties), with the proceeds to be shared between her sons (the Harts). On the same date the deceased gave another property, Unit 15, to her daughter and son-in-law, Mr and Mrs Burbidge, and also released them from a debt of £44,000. In 2007 the deceased made a further will leaving No 7 to the Harts and No 43 to her siblings and any grandchildren surviving her with the residue to be divided equally amongst her children.

Having decided to live with the Burbidges, the deceased transferred her...

Hart & anr v Burbidge & ors [2014] EWCA Civ 992 On appeal from: [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

and 

1. ARTHUR KENNETH GERALD SAMWAYS
2. GRAHAM DOUGLAS SAMWAYS
3. CHRISTINE MARGARET GARLINGE
4. PETER KENNETH HART
5. LEWIS ROGER HART
6. GEMMA LOUISE HART

v

1. SUSAN ANNE BURBIDGE
2. BRIAN JEFFERY BURBIDGE
3. KENNETH CHARLES HART
4. PAUL ROGER HART

The appellants appealed a decision in two actions that had been tried together ...

Undue Influence: After Etridge

Nigel Thomas examines unconscionable bargains and presumed undue influence, with reference to Evans v Lloyd ‘This was a case of presumed undue influence and that being so then the claimants were required to prove (i) a relationship of trust and confidence and (ii) a transaction that calls for explanation.’ Some might be surprised that cases …
This post is only available to members.

Wills: Challenging the validity of a will

Siân Hodgson discusses the tactics employed in Tociapski v Tociapski ‘Tociapski v Tociapski may act as a warning to potential defendants who may be considering whether or not to actively take part in proceedings.’ Following a person’s death, there may be a dispute about whether that person’s last will is valid. Relatives or close friends …
This post is only available to members.