Archibald & anr v Stewart & anr [2024] WTLR 1
Spring 2024 #194Rosemary and Malcolm were the adoptive parents of Neil and his younger brother Michael. Neil married Julie in 1999 and they had two children, who were young adults by the time of the hearing. Rosemary died on 10 June 2014 and Malcolm on 14 January 2021. Neil died on 25 June 2023 after proceedings had been issued.
Rosemary and Malcolm made wills in similar terms on 26 May 2009. Rosemary made a codicil dated 23 May 2014. Both left pecuniary legacies with the residue to be held under discretionary trusts for three classes of beneficiaries: a) the surviving spouse; b) their children a...
Clarke & ors v Shrewsbury and Atcham Constituency Labour Party & ors [2024] WTLR 67
Spring 2024 #194James Morris (the settlor), a Labour Party councillor and businessman, settled two trusts (the trusts). This claim concerned the validity of the trusts, their rectification, a proprietary estoppel claim by a beneficiary, and the consequences of the trusts’ invalidity.
The first trust concerned Morris Hall, Bellstone Court, Bellstone, Shrewsbury (the hall), which Mr Morris transferred to himself and three others to hold pursuant to a declaration of trust dated 5 April 1934 (the hall trust).
Clause 1(g) of the hall trust provided:
‘After making provision fo...
King v King [2024] WTLR 177
Spring 2024 #194Eric Stanley King (deceased), a divorcee, died intestate on 15 April 2021. Rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR 1987) set out the order of priority for a grant of letters of administration on an intestacy; in this case, the persons entitled were the appellant and respondent (being the children of the deceased) and the three children of a third child who had predeceased the deceased. Where more than one person of the same degree was entitled to a grant, the court had a discretion as to which of them it should appoint as administrator. In this ...
Leeson & anr v McPherson [2024] WTLR 197
Spring 2024 #194On 6 June 2017, Ms Leeson died in Denmark. Her husband, the defendant, was prosecuted and ultimately acquitted of her murder. After such acquittal, civil proceedings were issued alleging inter alia that the defendant unlawfully killed Ms Leeson and the inquest proceedings resumed. In the civil proceedings, the parties were ordered to and did produce a schedule of agreed facts. Such schedule was based on the disclosure in the civil proceedings, including third-party disclosure from the police. The claimants’ solicitors acting in the inquest proceedings asked for permission that s...
National Westminster Bank plc & ors v Ludlow Trust Co Ltd & ors [2024] WTLR 239
Spring 2024 #194Each of the claimant banks were part of the NatWest Group and appointed as trustee of a number of trusts. Following the decision by the NatWest Group in 2019 to divest itself of its trusteeships and trust administration business, a bidding process was commenced seeking a replacement trustee for 3,946 trusts, both private and charitable, and the first defendant (Ludlow) was ultimately the successful bidder based upon a detailed scoring system. The trust administration business was transferred to Ludlow for £1 and Ludlow agreed to pay all of the claimants’ costs of transferring the various...
Richefond & ors v Dillon & ors [2024] WTLR 253
Spring 2024 #194The 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.<...
Thandi v Saggu [2024] WTLR 283
Spring 2024 #194The claimant was the freehold registered proprietor of 7 Parkside Parade, Dartford, Kent (7 Parkside Parade). The defendant was managing director of a construction company called Earlswood Interiors Ltd (Earlswood Interiors). Earlswood Interiors carried out some work on the claimant’s home, a different property. There was an issue with payment for additional works. In April 2018 Earlswood Interiors had been owed £15,000 and had demanded that sum from the claimant. It was found that no unwarranted or illegitimate pressure had been applied to the claimant but she had felt under pressure to...
Winter & anr v Winter & anr [2024] WTLR 327
Spring 2024 #194The court was concerned with the claim of Richard and Adrian Winter to challenge the dispositions made by their father, Albert Winter, in his will dated 30 April 2015 (the 2015 will) which left the residue of his estate to their brother, Philip. The principal asset in Albert’s estate was his share in a market garden business operated by the family for many years, and since 1998 as a partnership between Albert, his late wife Brenda, the claimants and the first defendant. In January 2004 the partnership business was transferred to a company.
The claim was put on two principal bases....
Colicci & ors v Grinberg & anr [2023] WTLR 1249
Winter 2023 #193The court was concerned with costs following the trial of a claim relating to the estate of Ernesto Colicci (deceased). Recorder Mark Anderson KC had handed down judgment on 18 May 2023 following the trial in March 2023. He reserved judgment on costs after further submissions at a consequential hearing on 19 July.
The claimants’ principal claim, based on interpretation of an agreement, succeeded. The claimants were therefore the successful parties. The Recorder acknowledged that the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful part...
Harvey & anr v Van Hoorn [2023] WTLR 1323
Winter 2023 #193This was a claim for an order under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, or alternatively a direction that the trustees of a settlement be at liberty to implement an arrangement involving the release and reimposition of certain powers. The claimants were the only trustees of the trust, and were also, respectively, the widow of the settlor, who had become the trust’s life tenant upon his death, and the settlor’s only child, who was also one of the objects of a discretionary power of appointment under the trust. They were concerned about the capital gains tax consequences that would ...