James v Scudamore & ors [2023] WTLR 961

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2023 #192

The deceased died on 21 June 2010. His will, dated 6 March 1998, gave a life interest in the matrimonial home to his second wife, with remainders to the claimant and his brother, who were children of the deceased’s first marriage. A codicil, dated 26 December 2002, replaced the life interest with an absolute gift to the second wife. The deceased’s second wife obtained probate, relying on a copy of the codicil as the original could not be found, and administered the estate. The second wife made a will by which 70% of her residuary estate went to her sister, and 30% to the claimant’s three...

Selvarajah v Selvarajah & ors WTLR(w) 2023-05

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Wilson & anr v Spence & anr WTLR(w) 2022-09

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Reeves v Drew & ors WTLR(w) 2022-08

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Morris v Fuirer & ors [2022] WTLR 659

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2022 #187

The claimant, who was the only child of Cynthia Morris (the testatrix), was the principal beneficiary under her will dated 25 October 2000 but not under later wills made on 28 November 2006 and 14 July 2010 (the wills). The testatrix died on 7 August 2017. Under the terms of her last will, the second and third defendants were appointed as executors; pecuniary legacies were bequeathed to the claimant (£35,000), the first defendant (£70,000) and the fourth defendant (£10,000); and her residuary estate was gifted to the sixth to ninth defendants who were charities. The claimant first intima...

Valid execution: A will, but no way

Wilson v Spence is a useful reminder of the evidential burden on a party propounding a will. Dilan Deeljur discusses Practitioners (on either side, whether propounder or examiner of a will) should not simply take a will at face value and assume valid execution. In Wilson v Spence [2022] the claimants sought to propound a …
This post is only available to members.

Barnaby & anr v Johnson [2020] WTLR 67

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178

Mrs Maudlin Bascoe (T) died on 29 August 2015. Cs sought to prove a will dated 27 April 2005 (the 2005 will) naming them as executors. C1 was T’s son. C2 was T’s former solicitor and the draftsman of her wills from 1988 2005. D was T’s daughter. T also had two other children – a son, G, (who pre-deceased her) and a daughter, B (who died after T in 2017).

Under the 2005 will, D received a legacy of £100. There was an earlier will dated 25 October 1992 (the 1992 will) leaving D a legacy of £10,000 the validity of which D did not dispute at trial.

D challenged the 2005 will, a...

Wills: A risky business

Laura Abbott sets out what needs to be considered when challenging the validity of a will prepared by a professional ‘The court will require the strongest of evidence to find a will to be invalid and it is extremely difficult to succeed where the medical records and solicitors’ evidence are all supportive of validity.’ As …
This post is only available to members.

Gupta v Gupta & ors [2019] WTLR 575

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2019 #175

The Claimant (‘Rakesh’) sought to pronounce against the only will made by his late mother, Urmila Rani Gupta (‘the Will’). The Defendants were his two siblings (‘Naresh’ and ‘Sashi’), their children and his own children. The only party actively defending the claim was Naresh – he also brought a Part 20 Claim to appoint an independent administrator of the estate. The Part 20 Claim was not opposed.

The Deceased and her husband Laxmi made mirror wills in November 1998. Laxmi died before the Deceased, so the effect of the Will was that it gave Sashi and each grandchild a small pecunia...

Wilson v Lassman [2018] WTLR 1577

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2018 #170

The claimant sought an order pronouncing against the will of his late father Gerald Wilson (the ‘deceased’) dated 9 October 2010, and revoking the grant of probate obtained by the defendant, as executor and sole beneficiary. The claimant contended that the will was not validly executed in compliance with s9 of the Wills Act 1837 (the ‘1837 Act’).

The will had been written, in manuscript by the deceased on a will form and was purportedly attested by two witnesses, Mr Byrne and Mr McKinley. It contained a proper attestation clause. It was not disputed that...