Allen v Webster [2024] WTLR 775

Autumn 2024 #196

By the underlying claim the appellant (the claimant at first instance) had sought a declaration as to the extent of his beneficial interest in a residential property (the property) which he and the respondent (the defendant at first instance) had purchased in joint names, having been at that time a cohabiting couple. Following a dispute, the claimant had moved out of the property only two years or so after it had initially been purchased. Prior to moving out, the claimant had contributed to the mortgage repayments in equal shares with the defendant, but had ceased to make any further con...

Biria v Biria & ors [2024] WTLR 785

Autumn 2024 #196

The deceased passed away aged 97 on 21 January 2022. On 1 May 2020 he had purported to execute a will. At that time there were extant proceedings before the Court of Protection seeking an assessment of his capacity to manage his own affairs and expressing concern that he was being exploited by two of his children (the first and second defendants). On 24 April 2020 the Court of Protection made a declaration that there was reason to believe he lacked capacity to manage his own affairs and ordered an assessment.

The claimant was another of the deceased’s children and had been express...

CL v Swansea Bay University Health Board & ors [2024] WTLR 813

Autumn 2024 #196

Mrs Justice Theis DBE was concerned with the appeal by CL (the appellant) from the order of HHJ Porter-Bryant dated 6 December 2023 (Swansea Bay University Health Board v P [2023]) which discharged a previous order appointing the appellant as LL’s deputy for personal welfare. The appellant was LL’s mother. The respondents to the appeal were the Swansea Bay University Health Board (the first respondent), LL by his litigation friend AB (the second respondent), LL’s father (the third respondent) and Swansea City Council (the fourth respondent). The fourth respondent took no active part in t...

Dryden v Young & ors [2024] WTLR 843

Autumn 2024 #196

The deceased made a will dated 26 May 2016. The will gifted the residue of the deceased’s estate in equal shares to 15 charitable beneficiaries. The construction of seven of those gifts was in doubt.

The gifts in question had been carried over from the deceased’s previous wills, of which only one had been located. Will files did not survive and the drafting solicitor had little recollection of what the deceased had intended. There was little evidence of charitable gifting made by the deceased in life.

The probate value of the deceased’s estate was £1.48m and each one-fiftee...

The Estate of Nafisa Hasan v Digit Ltd & anr [2024] WTLR 883

Autumn 2024 #196

The court determined preliminary issues in respect of whether the deceased (who died in 2022 after the issue of proceedings) had a beneficial interest in a residential flat and, if so, what that interest was and whether the interest was held on an express trust, constructive trust or resulting trust, or under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

The first defendant was a Cayman Island company incorporated in 1998, which acquired the leasehold title of the flat shortly afterwards. The first defendant was incorporated by the deceased’s former husband, a colonel in the Pakistani arm...

Gowing & ors v Ward & anr [2024] WTLR 901

Autumn 2024 #196

The deceased died in 2020 at the age of 91. He had three children, one of whom had predeceased him in 2015. The defendants were the deceased’s surviving children, the personal representatives of the deceased’s estate, and the equal beneficiaries of the residuary estate pursuant to a will made in 2018. The claimants were the granddaughters of the deceased (the children of his predeceased son). A family rift opened in 2015 following the death of the deceased’s son. The claimants contended that:

(a) the deceased lacked testamentary capacity; (b) he did not know and approve of the conte...

Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation v PW & anr [2024] WTLR 943

Autumn 2024 #196

The claimant (a trust corporation) was appointed as deputy for property and financial affairs for the first defendant. The claimant instructed IMAM (an investment manager) to invest the first defendant’s funds. IMAM was part of the same corporate group as the claimant (IMAM was wholly owned by IMHL, and IMHL wholly owned IMLLP which wholly owned the claimant).

During a statutory will application, the Official Solicitor expressed concern about the appointment of IMAM. The court directed the claimant to apply for retrospective authority to instruct IMAM.

The claimant’s eviden...

Kettridge v Adams & ors [2024] WTLR 979

Autumn 2024 #196

The testatrix died on 19 February 2021. She left a will dated 14 February 2021 leaving all of her property (other than a small bequest to a charity) to the defendants (her sons). The claimant brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (IPFDA).

The claimant and the testatrix had begun spending time together in 2014. In 2018, the claimant proposed marriage and the testatrix accepted (though they did not marry and the defendants said that the testatrix had said that she did not really intend to marry the claimant). From September 2018 (when t...

Lonsdale & ors v Wedlake Bell LLP & ors [2024] WTLR 1007

Autumn 2024 #196

The first claimant brought a claim in his individual capacity as settlor and trustee for professional negligence against the solicitors he had instructed in relation to a settlement made in 1987, which created a discretionary trust (the trust) in favour of a number of beneficiaries including the first claimant’s children. The first claimant intended to benefit his own children (the children) with his nieces/nephews as backstop beneficiaries should the trust in favour of the children fail. However the terms of the trust, which gave the beneficiaries the right to income when they attained ...

PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK & anr [2024] WTLR 1051

Autumn 2024 #196

The applicant, who was the deputy for both respondents, sought the guidance of the court as to how to approach the issue of whether to inform a protected party (P) of the value of their civil litigation settlement. The essence of the issue was whether the respondents had the capacity to understand the value of their personal injury funds and appreciate the extent to which wider knowledge of their assets may render them vulnerable. If not, a ‘best interests’ decision was required to be taken as to whether they should be told the size of their funds. At present there was no guidance from t...