Richefond & ors v Dillon & ors [2024] WTLR 253

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2024 #194

The first claimant and her co-executors sought to propound a will which was resisted by the first to third defendants. In a previous judgment the Master had determined that the will was valid as to part but the gift of residue to the first claimant failed because the testator did not know and approve of that part in light of his illiteracy and the lack of proper explanation from the will draftsman. The result was that the testator’s home was held on trust for the first claimant’s occupation but the residuary estate passed on the statutory trusts of intestacy between the five defendants.<...

Lumb v Lumb [2023] WTLR 1459

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2023 #193

This was an appeal against the decision of Deputy District Judge Whitehead dated 13 December 2022, whereby he made no order as to costs but granted the claimant permission to appeal following his successful summary judgment application, by which the claimant had sought and obtained pronouncement in solemn form in favour of the validity of the will of his mother, Ina Margaret Lumb (deceased), and ancillary orders. The learned judge found that the usual costs rule that costs follow the event did not apply because it was displaced by CPR r57.7(5)(b) under which the court would not ...

Rea v Rea & ors [2023] WTLR 1509

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2023 #193

The dispute concerned which will of the deceased, Anna Rea, should be admitted to probate. Her first will dated 29 May 1986 gave all of her property to such of her four children as should survive her, if more than one in equal shares absolutely, subject to them surviving her by 28 days (the 1986 will).

A more recent will dated 7 December 2015 (the 2015 will) was witnessed by the solicitor who prepared it and the deceased’s GP. It provided for the deceased’s house to be left to the claimant, on account of the care she had given the deceased, with the residue to be divided between h...

Goodwin v Avison & ors WTLR(w) 2022-04

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Costs: Action not to be taken lightly

Laura Abbott sets out the key principles concerning costs and contentious probate proceedings Any claim should be approached on the basis that costs follow the event. Parties must therefore be willing, and able, to pay their own costs and those of their opponent if they are unsuccessful. Goodwin v Avison [2021] is a useful précis …
This post is only available to members.

Probate: Promises, promises

The parable of the prodigal son has resonance in modern probate disputes. Alex Troup discusses ‘The judge’s finding that the deceased had deliberately broken the agreement to equalise the balance between her two children explained the difference between her old will and the disputed will.’ The parable of the prodigal son has all the makings …
This post is only available to members.

Capacity: Importance of the golden rule

Kevin Kennedy and Andrew Walls report on the test in Banks v Goodfellow ‘This judgment provides very significant support that the Banks v Goodfellow test is the sole test for the court to apply when judging testamentary capacity post mortem.‘ The High Court in James v James [2018] has ruled that the test in Banks …
This post is only available to members.

Elliott v Simmonds (costs) [2016] EWHC 962 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2016 #163

On 7 April 2016 judgment was delivered pronouncing for the force and validity of the will dated 1 February 2012 (2012 will) of Kenneth William Jordan (Mr Jordan) in solemn form of law and ordering that a caveat entered by the first defendant in respect of his estate cease to have effect. The normal rule of costs is that costs follow the event. However, the Court has discretion to make a different order, taking into account, for example, the conduct of the parties. In a contentious probate claim, there are also specific exceptions to the normal rule arising under case law and under the Ci...

Wills: One step, two step…

Araba Taylor examines Re Butcher [2015], a case that puts the principles of Gill v Woodall into practice ‘The single test comes into its own where the court has enough facts, expert opinions and other evidence to enable it to make findings as to how the will was prepared and/or executed.’ Before the CA decision …
This post is only available to members.

Trust And Probate Claims: Counting the cost

Alexander Learmonth examines the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision on the costs of the claim for rectification of a will in Marley v Rawlings [2014] ‘When advising clients contemplating the risks of litigation, litigators should continue to adopt a cautious approach; clients must be ready to negotiate in good faith, rather than relying on …
This post is only available to members.