Re Clitheroe [2021] WTLR 449

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2021 #183

The claimant (C) and the defendant (D) were the surviving children of the deceased. Her other child, E, had died of cancer without children. Although the deceased had been close to D and D’s daughter, this changed after a disagreement between D and the deceased about E’s medication, when the deceased threatened that she would not forgive or speak to D again. The Deputy Master found that D was not responsible for the estrangement and that the deceased had irrationally maintained that it was D who cut her out rather than the other way around. E’s death had a profound effe...

Eade v Hogg & ors [2021] WTLR 507

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2021 #183

Mr Nodes (the deceased) passed away on 8 March 2019. The deceased’s estate included a large shareholding in a family company (the company). Each of the deceased’s wife and his former colleague (the claimant) also possessed small shareholdings in their own name. By his will, dated 22 October 2015, the deceased left his large shareholding in the company on trust for his wife for life, subject to an overriding power of appointment in favour either or both of his wife and his former colleague, allowing for an appointment of shares ‘up to such number… as shall when added to ...

The British University in Dubai v Ebrahimi [2021] WTLR 703

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2021 #183

The deceased died on 4 July 2018 leaving a disputed will, dated 3 May 2018, probate of which was granted to the defendant, who together with his wife were the only beneficiaries.

The 2018 will was a holographic one-page will. On one side it bore the signatures of two witnesses who, it was common ground, had witnessed the testator’s signature on 4 May 2018 when not together at the same time and so did not validly attest the will in accordance with s9, Wills Act 1837. On the reverse of the will were two further signatures dated 3 May 2018, belonging to two further wit...

Wills: Trial and error

Alexander Learmonth QC and James McKean report on a case on construction and rectification If the will does not accord with the deceased’s intentions, the wrong is irreversible. Correcting that wrong must be more important than classifying how it came about. There is a will, a company, and two beneficiaries. The will gives 26% of …
This post is only available to members.

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); ...

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...

Wills: Which law to interpret a will – a simple question with a complicated answer

Applications under s48 AJA 1985 are rare. Mary Ashley explores a case which illuminates the court’s approach in such claims To have acquired a domicile of choice, the deceased must have both lived in a location and formed the intention to live there permanently or indefinitely. Clarke-Sullivan v Clarke-Sullivan [2021] is a case which concerned …
This post is only available to members.

Re Wales [2020] WTLR 1121

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2020 #180

The deceased died on 17 February 2015 as a widower with no children. He left a will dated 22 December 2008. The claimants were his executors.

Clause 7 of the will left the residuary estate to ‘such all of my nephew’s and niece’s children’. At the date of his death, the deceased had two blood nephews and two blood nieces, and also three nephews by marriage and one niece by marriage. A further nephew by marriage had died in 1992 leaving a son. The claimants sought directions as to whether the gift was just to the nieces and nephews by blood, or whether it was also to the nieces and ...

Wills: The mysterious case of the long-lost will

The appearance of a will after many years is problematic. Joseph de Lacey investigates the outcome of this scenario in Wrangle v Brunt, which also involved an allegation of forgery A will can be signed by another person at the direction of the testator. Where this happens, it is sensible to ensure that a full …
This post is only available to members.

Wills: Prevention rather than cure

Duncan Bailey and Imogen Trafford discuss best practice to guard against undue influence claims HHJ Matthews considered that the advice and explanation given by the solicitor was sufficient to free the deceased from any influence that might have been exercised by the first defendant. Coles v Reynolds [2020] demonstrates some of the appropriate safeguards that …
This post is only available to members.