Hudson v Hathway [2023] WTLR 207

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2023 #190

After Jayne Hathaway (JH) and Lee Hudson (LH) started a relationship in 1990, JH moved into LH’s home and became a joint owner. They had two sons together but did not marry. After selling their home, they bought another in joint names. In 2007 they sold that home and, with a mortgage, bought Picnic House in joint names. The mortgage payments were made from a joint bank account, into which the salaries of them both were paid. LH’s contributions towards the mortgage payments far exceeded those of JH.

In 2009, LH left JH and moved in with another woman, whom he later married. JH cont...

Sismey v Salandron [2022] WTLR 281

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186

H was married to W, and they had a son, T. They all lived in a property in Derbyshire (the property), which was owned by H. While T was a child and H was working abroad, H met M in the Philippines and formed a relationship with her. H and W separated, and W and T moved out of the property and into one owned by W. H retained the property as his home when in the UK. H and M had a child, J, and after that H, M and J moved to live together in the UK, in the property.

W petitioned for a divorce from H and a consent order in the financial remedy proceedings was approved by the judge and...

Clyne v Conlon & ors [2021] WTLR 1231

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185

By his will dated 8 March 2016 (the will) Patrick Conlon (the testator) appointed the claimant, who was his niece, and her sister as executrices and divided his net residuary estate equally between the claimant and his three sons, the defendants. Probate of the will was granted on 19 October 2018 in respect to a net estate of about £516,000. The claimant’s sister was removed as an executrix by an order dated 26 October 2020. The first defendant, who had previously been in business with his father, claimed to be beneficially entitled to one half of 168 Headstone Drive, Harrow and the whol...

Informal agreements and estoppel: Formality no bar to estoppel

Mark Pawlowski examines a recent case on the inter-relationship between proprietary estoppel and statute On appeal, Snowden J, agreeing with the trial judge, concluded that s2(1) was aimed at problems in the formation of contracts for sale of land, whereas an estoppel remedied unconscionability in the assertion of strict legal rights The recent High Court …
This post is only available to members.

Legg v Burton [2017] WTLR 1017

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

The testatrix had two daughters, the first and second claimants. In July 2000, the testatrix and her husband made wills in favour of the survivor, and subject to that, in favour of the claimants in equal shares.

The husband died in May 2001. Between 2001 and 2004, the testatrix made 13 further wills. These progressively favoured the defendants (who were two of the grandsons of the testatrix and the partner of one of them), at the expense of the claimants. The last of these wills was made on 12 December 2014, when she made a further will under which the claimants took a legacy of £...

Matchmove v Dowding & anr [2016] EWCA Civ 1233

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2017 #167

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the enforceability of an agreement to sell a piece of land through proprietary estoppel and constructive trust notwithstanding the absence of a written contract.

F, a property developer, was the moving spirit of the appellant (M). In 2002, F began negotiations with G for the purchase of a plot of land (the land) and a meadow (the meadow). F intended to divide the land into two plots. Plot 1 and plot 2 would be sold separately. G did not want to sell until he had planning permission, which was granted in 2003.

By late 2003, a ‘comm...

Herbert v Doyle & anr [2010] EWCA Civ 1095

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2015 #154

The appellant (Mr Herbert) owned the freehold of a house and a large garden. The respondents (Mr Doyle and Mr Talati) owned the freehold of an adjacent property comprising a dental surgery with nine parking spaces. They also leased part of the ground floor in the main house from Mr Herbert. They carried on a practice as dental practitioners from the freehold and leasehold premises and they and their clients used the parking spaces. Mr Herbert wished to develop the former walled garden of Mansfield House and to build mews houses, but to do so he needed Mr Doyle and Mr Talati to exchange s...

Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited & ors [2014] UKSC 52

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2015 #151

The appeal arose from one of what were originally ten test cases in which the defendant home owners (the vendors) were persuaded to sell their properties to purchasers (the purchasers) who promised the vendors the right to remain in their homes after the sale. The purchasers bought the homes with the assistance of mortgages from lenders (the lenders), who were not given notice of the promises to the vendors. Neither the rights of occupation promised by the purchasers to the vendors nor the tenancies granted by the purchasers were permitted by the lenders’ mortgage. Exchange of contracts ...