Rokkan v Rokkan & anr WTLR(w) 2021-10

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

B v C & ors [2021] WTLR 1

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182

A was survived by C, his sister; H, with whom he had had a relationship; E and F, who were the daughters of A and H; B, with whom A had also had a relationship; and G, the son of A and B. C was one of the executors of A’s will. Each of A and C owned 50% of the shares in X Ltd (the company) and on A’s death C remained a director and was in control of the company. During A’s lifetime, a property (Property 1) was acquired in his name and remained so at his death.

There were three claims following A’s death: (1) H claimed to be the beneficial owner of Property 1 (the property claim); ...

Cheong v Cheong [2021] WTLR 79

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182

Shortly before his death in 1947, the deceased made a will appointing his sons as his executors and trustees (the will). Clause 3 of the will provided that, ‘If any of my Trustees disagree with the others or have to attend to other business, he is at liberty to resign and the vacancy thereby created shall be filled accordingly.’

By 2017, following a series of deeds of appointments and retirements of trustees over several decades, the trustees were three individuals. In January 2019, the plaintiff wrote to the two other trustees notifying them of his intention to retire as a truste...

Clarke-Sullivan v Clarke-Sullivan [2021] WTLR 109

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182

The claimant and the deceased, who both originated from New Zealand, were married. They lived in London from 2006-10 and in Dubai from 2010-15, returning to London before the deceased’s death in 2019.

In 2014, the claimant and the deceased created a discretionary trust under the laws of New Zealand, with New Zealand being the initial forum of administration (the trust). The beneficiaries included the claimant and the deceased, their future issue and organisations that were deemed to be charitable under New Zealand law. The trust was established to hold property intended to be purc...

Evans v Evans & anr [2020] WTLR 1231

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181

The claimant was married to the deceased, and was the sole beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. The claimant, who suffered from motor neurone disease and lacked capacity, was represented by her litigation friend, her daughter. The defendants were the executors of the deceased’s estate, and were the sons of the deceased and the claimant, and the brothers of the claimant’s litigation friend.

In contested probate proceedings, the claimant sought, inter alia, an order removing the defendants as executors of the deceased’s estate and the appointment of an independent administrator.

Re Noble [2020] WTLR 1371

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181

John Robinson Noble (Mr Noble) died in 2014. The plaintiff was his youngest daughter, and the first and second defendants were respectively his eldest daughter and his son. Mr Noble left a will, of which the first defendant was the sole executrix. The will provided that Mr Noble’s estate should be held in trust for such of his children as survived him by 14 days and if more than one then in equal shares. His will expressed the wish that either of his daughters be permitted to live in his dwelling house (the family home) for so long as they require, but making clear that this expression w...

Succession: Who died first?

Mark Pawlowski examines the doctrine of commorientes with particular reference to its implications for property held on a joint tenancy Where there is uncertainty surrounding the circumstances of joint or simultaneous death (ie, so that it is not known who died first), a fairer and more just solution is to convert the joint tenancy into …
This post is only available to members.

Shapton v Seviour [2020] WTLR 1047

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2020 #180

The claimant was the daughter of the late Mr Colin John Seviour. The defendant was Mr Seviour’s second wife. Under the terms of Mr Seviour’s will the defendant was to take the entire estate outright. Mr Seviour died on 8 August 2016. His estate was sworn at £268,000 of which £215,000 was comprised in his share of the matrimonial home he had held under a tenancy in common together with the defendant.

In 2017 the defendant was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease. In order to retain her independence she had to have the matrimonial home modified to accommodate her needs. The defendan...

Barrs Residential & Leisure Ltd v Pleass Thomson & Co [2020] WTLR 759

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2020 #180

The deceased was the owner and occupier of a mobile home situated on a site owned by the appellant. The site was a ‘protected site’ under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, s1 and the deceased had the benefit of a pitch agreement dated 25 November 2005, to which the Act applied. The agreement, together with the statutory controls incorporated by the Act, provided for limited rights of alienation, subject to the payment of commission to the site owner.

Sections 3(3) and (4) of the Act provide that:

  1. ‘(3) Where a...

Naylor v Barlow [2019] EWHC 1565 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2019 #176

The claimants were practising solicitors and trustees of a trust created by the will of John Hine (T) who died on 4 January 1992. T had had four children. Two, Beryl Clowes and John Hine, were the third and fourth defendants. One, Philip Hines, pre-deceased T leaving two children, Judith Barlow and Janet Lomax, the first and second defendants. The fourth, Basil Hine, had survived T but died before the proceedings were issued leaving a widow, Barbara Hine, who was the fifth defendant.

T had been the sole freehold owner of the family farm, Brown Edge Farm. Clause 3 of his will devi...