Bagguley v E [2019] EWCOP 49

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178

The claimant was the Property and Affairs Deputy for the defendant (E). The claimant applied for authority for buccal cell samples to be taken from E for the purposes of DNA testing to establish whether E was the father of three adults (D, P, and A).

E was expected to die within the year though his health was not currently critical ([28]). The procedure for collecting the sample was probably no more intrusive than assisting E to clean his teeth.

Earlier DNA tests were undertaken on E’s instructions in 1991. They indicated a 99.9% probability of paternity, provided no close ...

DNA testing: Time for change?

Chris Bryden and Jennifer Lanigan argue that the inconsistent approach to DNA samples held by non-medical organisations requires reform The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to direct posthumous paternity testing against existing DNA samples taken in life. It is trite to state that the establishment of paternity will often be of immense importance to an …
This post is only available to members.

Anderson v Spencer [2018] EWCA Civ 100

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

The mother and executor (V) of the deceased appealed against an order that a DNA sample from the deceased, held by a hospital, be tested against the respondent (D), to determine whether he was the son of the deceased. The deceased had suffered from an hereditary form of bowel cancer called Lynch Syndrome, and so D wanted to discover if he was at risk of this condition developing. V refused consent. D applied for a declaration of paternity under s55A Family Law Act 1986, in the context of which he sought an order for testing of the DNA sample collected by the hospital during the ...

Nield-Moir v Freeman [2018] EWHC 299 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

The deceased died intestate. The claimant (N) and the defendant (F) were both born to the deceased’s late wife (W) during her marriage to the deceased, such that a rebuttable presumption that they were both children of the deceased arose. Letters of administration were granted to F. F later sold the deceased’s house to herself.


N denied that F was the child of the deceased. N therefore sought revocation of the grant to F, as well as a grant to herself, a declaration as to her beneficial entitlement to the whole of the estate, and an order setting aside the sale of the house.