Probate: Do ask, do tell

Hutchings v HMRC [2015] provides comfort for executors given inaccurate information by beneficiaries. Marilyn McKeever gives the lowdown ‘The tribunal concluded that Clayton chose not to tell the executors about the account in order to evade paying tax on the money. It considered that he never intended to disclose the gift to HMRC and, accordingly, …
This post is only available to members.

Routier & anr v HMRC Neutral citation: [2014] EWHC 3010 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2014 #145

This was an appeal from notices of determination by HMRC which held that dispositions in the will of Beryl Coulter (the deceased) did not fall within s23 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, and were therefore not exempt from inheritance tax. The deceased died on 9 October 2007 domiciled in Jersey. Her final will was dated 1 October 2004 and probate was granted in the probate division of the Royal Court of Jersey on 25 October 2007. The will made several legacies totalling £210,000 and the residue passed to her executors to be held on the terms of the Coulter Trust for the purpose of the pro...

Petterson v Ross & ors [2013] EWHC 2724 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2014 #137

Mrs Ross, the testatrix, (T) had three adult children, the defendants: Diana (D), Lorenzo (L) and Gianni (G). T died on 13 July 2008 leaving a will dated 21 October 1988 (the will). At her death T held the following assets:

  1. a) 13 Kensington Gardens, Ferryhill, County Durham (13KG) where D had lived until she moved in with her partner. At T’s death the property was worth £125,000 but subject to a mortgage with £50,401.52 outstanding. 13KG was bequeathed to D ‘free from any mortgage or legal charge to which the same may be subject at the date of my death’. T...

Schomberg & ors v Taylor & ors [2013] EWHC 2269 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2013 #133

The testatrix (W) was the second wife of the late Brian Taylor (H) and had two step sons, David (D) and Paul (P), the first and second defendants. She had a sister, Penny, who married the eighth defendant, Mr Bruce Peskin (B), and who had three children, the fifth to seventh defendants, Cindy, Andrew and Dominic (the 2008 beneficiaries). W and H visited Penny and B, until a few years before they died. They stopped doing so after B, who was in financial difficulties, repeatedly pressurised them to obtain financial assistance in relation to a property development and sale. As a result of t...

Probate: A blast from the past

Andrew Francis discusses Gudavadze v Kay, which sheds light on a rarely used jurisdiction of the court to pass over those who would normally be entitled to a grant of representation ‘Gudavadze v Kay makes it clear that s116 is a very useful tool in the probate practitioner’s work box where the absence of a …
This post is only available to members.

Paynter & anr v Hinch [2013] EWHC 13 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2013 #128

>The defendant (Frank) obtained probate of his late mother’s will dated 26 July 2004 (Abbie and the 2004 will). The 2004 will appointed Frank sole executor of Abbie’s estate, which was bequeathed to Frank absolutely.

The claimants (Stephen and Victoria), Abbie’s other surviving children, challenged the validity of the 2004 will on the ground that their mother did not know and approve its contents. They sought revocation of the grant of probate made to Frank and a grant in solemn form of a will dated 24 January 1999 (the 1999 will), by which Abbie’s re...

Singh & ors v Ahluwalia [2012] EWCA Civ 1635

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2013 #127

The testator, Ranjit Singh (D), died in 2009. He had executed a will dated 3 May 1999, naming his eldest son, the claimant (J), as executor and sole beneficiary. The will was attested by two witnesses, Maurice Grantham (G) and Gurdial Ahluwalia (A). D’s daughter, Balvinder Ahluwalia (B), challenged the will on the grounds that the two witnesses had signed it on two separate and distinct occasions at different places. G gave evidence that he had signed the will when D visited his house and he was the only witness present, but he was not able to identify the will when it was shown to...

Probate: Warring executors

D R Sheridan LLP v Higgins serves as a timely reminder of the difficulties when acting for executors who fall out, as Mike Robinson discusses ‘A bad situation that developed between executors ended up being made worse by the solicitors acting for them, resulting in delay in the administration of the estate, a mess which …
This post is only available to members.

Probate: Jarndyce revisited

Khan v Crossland reveals flaws in the current method of passing over executors, as Michael O’Sullivan discusses ‘HHJ Behrens rejected the submission made by the defendants’ counsel that the executors needed to disentitle themselves to a grant before an order under s116 SCA could be made.’ The decision in Khan v Crossland was made by …
This post is only available to members.

Wharton v Bancroft & ors [2011] EWHC (Ch) 3250

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | May 2012 #119

Mr Wharton (D) had been married many years ago and had two daughters from that marriage, Victoria and Gina, (V and G) the third and fourth defendants. He had another relationship which resulted in a third child, Amanda (A), the fifth defendant. He divorced his first wife in 1977 and cohabited with the claimant, Maureen, (M) who took his surname but did not marry him until immediately prior to his death in 2008. Between 1979 and 1995 D made and executed three successive wills all leaving substantial property to M and providing for his children, and some of M’s children, in various w...