Novoship (UK) Limited & ors v Nikitin & ors [2014] EWCA Civ 908

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2014 #144

Mr Mikhaylyuk (M), a manager for the first respondent, NOUK, with responsibility for negotiating the charters of vessels owned by companies within the Novoship group, the remaining respondents, owed fiduciary duties to all the respondents. M had arranged a series of schemes by which he defrauded his principals and enriched himself and others by the payment of bribes given to him by those who chartered his principals’ vessels. These schemes included one concerning vessels chartered to companies owned and controlled by Mr Ruperti (R) which R then sub-chartered at substantially higher rates...

King v Dubrey & ors [2014] EWCH 2083 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

The deceased, June Fairbrother, (D), a retired policewoman, made a will in March 1998 leaving legacies to friends and family, the 3rd to 14th defendants ,the executors and legatees and the residue to the 15th to 21st defendants, animal charities (the charities). In June 2007 D’s nephew, Mr King, the claimant (C) had a conversation with her. She was increasingly elderly and frightened of going into a home, and he agreed to move in with her to look after her. He had spent some time in prison as a result of an offence under the Companies Act and was living in the property of a busi...

Rosenbaum (dec’d) v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 495 (TC)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2014 #137

The appellant filed a paper tax return late and was liable to a penalty but appealed, arguing that it was merely intended to be a copy of a tax return subsequently filed online and in time. The respondent’s proposition was accepted that a subsequent online timely filing of a tax return by 31 January did not relieve a taxpayer, who had filed a valid paper tax return after 31 October, from a penalty. However, although the nature of the paper document which had been filed was in dispute and central to the issues between the parties, the respondent, on whom the burden of proof lay, fai...

Pearce v Beverley [2013] EWHC 2627 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2014 #136

John Pearce (Mr Pearce) died on 23 July 2008. His daughter, the claimant, challenged the validity of a will purportedly made by Mr Pearce on 20 June 2007 (the will) on grounds of lack of capacity and want of knowledge and approval, and also challenged a number of lifetime transactions said to be procured by the defendant’s undue influence.

Mr Pearce’s second marriage broke down in 2004 and he consequently became lonely and depressed. His health was generally deteriorating. He suffered from partial kidney failure, which was first noted in March 2005, and by 2006 from s...

Hart & anr v Burbidge & ors; Samways & ors v Burbidge & ors [2013] EWHC 1628 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2013 #132

The deceased, Phyllis Hart née Samways (W) died on 7 November 2008 aged 86. Her husband (H) had died in January 2005. They left three children, two sons, Kenneth (K) and Paul Hart (P) and a daughter Susan Burbidge (S), who all have children of their own. W had a twin sister (J) who died four weeks after her and three other surviving siblings: Arthur, Graham and Christine (the Samways). Some eight years before he died H wished to sell the family firm to one of his children, but only S and her husband (B) were prepared to take it over on his terms, which did not include the transfer of the...

Burden Of Proof: Loss of chance

Suzanne Farg and Verity Danziger discuss the hurdles to overcome to establish a claim The importance of factual and expert industry evidence cannot be underestimated and, in this case, the quality of the factual evidence was vital in allowing the claimant to bring his loss of earnings claim fully. The method by which the courts …
This post is only available to members.

Burden Of Proof: Pleading limitation

Philip Turton provides practical advice for claimants and defendants ‘In a case where the claimant has not issued proceedings in time, an appropriate paragraph in the defence identifying that fact, and pleading expressly that the claim is statute-barred by s11(4) of the Limitation Act 1980, should be enough to “get the ball into play”.’The expiry …
This post is only available to members.

Hubbard & anr v Scott & ors [2011] EWHC 2750 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2012 #116

The claimants were default beneficiaries who, in the event, stood to benefit under the terms of the will of Albert Wiseman (testator) dated 25 November 1997. They and their mother, who were longstanding friends of the testator, visited him at his home after the death of his wife. However, their visits tailed off during the last years of his life and, at some stage after May 2006, a neighbour introduced the testator, then aged 84, to the third defendant who initially worked for him as a cleaner. There was a dispute of fact as to whether this occurred over three years or under three months...

Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 1616 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2011 #115

Mrs Blofield (D) was in her 80’s and owned her own home worth around £140,000. Her only son (R) was an alcoholic and seriously ill. He moved into her house in 2002 and remained there until he died, intestate, on 5 August 2006. He had fathered several children. One was adopted and others taken into care but they paid no part in his life or that of his mother, D. He did, however, have a legitimate daughter, the claimant, Mrs Leigh Cowderoy, (C) who inherited his estate. Relations between C and R were strained and there was very little contact between C and D because of this although ...