Allen v Webster [2024] WTLR 775

By the underlying claim the appellant (the claimant at first instance) had sought a declaration as to the extent of his beneficial interest in a residential property (the property) which he and the respondent (the defendant at first instance) had purchased in joint names, having been at that time a cohabiting couple. Following a dispute, the claimant had moved out of the property only two years or so after it had initially been purchased. Prior to moving out, the claimant had contributed to the mortgage repayments in equal shares with the defendant, but had ceased to make any further con...

Biria v Biria & ors [2024] WTLR 785

The deceased passed away aged 97 on 21 January 2022. On 1 May 2020 he had purported to execute a will. At that time there were extant proceedings before the Court of Protection seeking an assessment of his capacity to manage his own affairs and expressing concern that he was being exploited by two of his children (the first and second defendants). On 24 April 2020 the Court of Protection made a declaration that there was reason to believe he lacked capacity to manage his own affairs and ordered an assessment.

The claimant was another of the deceased’s children and had been express...

CL v Swansea Bay University Health Board & ors [2024] WTLR 813

Mrs Justice Theis DBE was concerned with the appeal by CL (the appellant) from the order of HHJ Porter-Bryant dated 6 December 2023 (Swansea Bay University Health Board v P [2023]) which discharged a previous order appointing the appellant as LL’s deputy for personal welfare. The appellant was LL’s mother. The respondents to the appeal were the Swansea Bay University Health Board (the first respondent), LL by his litigation friend AB (the second respondent), LL’s father (the third respondent) and Swansea City Council (the fourth respondent). The fourth respondent took no active part in t...

Dryden v Young & ors [2024] WTLR 843

The deceased made a will dated 26 May 2016. The will gifted the residue of the deceased’s estate in equal shares to 15 charitable beneficiaries. The construction of seven of those gifts was in doubt.

The gifts in question had been carried over from the deceased’s previous wills, of which only one had been located. Will files did not survive and the drafting solicitor had little recollection of what the deceased had intended. There was little evidence of charitable gifting made by the deceased in life.

The probate value of the deceased’s estate was £1.48m and each one-fiftee...

The Estate of Nafisa Hasan v Digit Ltd & anr [2024] WTLR 883

The court determined preliminary issues in respect of whether the deceased (who died in 2022 after the issue of proceedings) had a beneficial interest in a residential flat and, if so, what that interest was and whether the interest was held on an express trust, constructive trust or resulting trust, or under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

The first defendant was a Cayman Island company incorporated in 1998, which acquired the leasehold title of the flat shortly afterwards. The first defendant was incorporated by the deceased’s former husband, a colonel in the Pakistani arm...

Gowing & ors v Ward & anr [2024] WTLR 901

The deceased died in 2020 at the age of 91. He had three children, one of whom had predeceased him in 2015. The defendants were the deceased’s surviving children, the personal representatives of the deceased’s estate, and the equal beneficiaries of the residuary estate pursuant to a will made in 2018. The claimants were the granddaughters of the deceased (the children of his predeceased son). A family rift opened in 2015 following the death of the deceased’s son. The claimants contended that:

Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation v PW & anr [2024] WTLR 943

The claimant (a trust corporation) was appointed as deputy for property and financial affairs for the first defendant. The claimant instructed IMAM (an investment manager) to invest the first defendant’s funds. IMAM was part of the same corporate group as the claimant (IMAM was wholly owned by IMHL, and IMHL wholly owned IMLLP which wholly owned the claimant).

During a statutory will application, the Official Solicitor expressed concern about the appointment of IMAM. The court directed the claimant to apply for retrospective authority to instruct IMAM.

The claimant’s eviden...

Kettridge v Adams & ors [2024] WTLR 979

The testatrix died on 19 February 2021. She left a will dated 14 February 2021 leaving all of her property (other than a small bequest to a charity) to the defendants (her sons). The claimant brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (IPFDA).

The claimant and the testatrix had begun spending time together in 2014. In 2018, the claimant proposed marriage and the testatrix accepted (though they did not marry and the defendants said that the testatrix had said that she did not really intend to marry the claimant). From September 2018 (when t...

Lonsdale & ors v Wedlake Bell LLP & ors [2024] WTLR 1007

The first claimant brought a claim in his individual capacity as settlor and trustee for professional negligence against the solicitors he had instructed in relation to a settlement made in 1987, which created a discretionary trust (the trust) in favour of a number of beneficiaries including the first claimant’s children. The first claimant intended to benefit his own children (the children) with his nieces/nephews as backstop beneficiaries should the trust in favour of the children fail. However the terms of the trust, which gave the beneficiaries the right to income when they attained ...

PSG Trust Corporation Ltd v CK & anr [2024] WTLR 1051

The applicant, who was the deputy for both respondents, sought the guidance of the court as to how to approach the issue of whether to inform a protected party (P) of the value of their civil litigation settlement. The essence of the issue was whether the respondents had the capacity to understand the value of their personal injury funds and appreciate the extent to which wider knowledge of their assets may render them vulnerable. If not, a ‘best interests’ decision was required to be taken as to whether they should be told the size of their funds. At present there was no guidance from t...

Rahman v Hassan & ors [2024] WTLR 1069

The claimant was a distant relative of the late Mr Al-Hasib Al Mahmood (the deceased) and had become increasingly close with the deceased in the period since the claimant had moved to England. The claimant, and the claimant’s wife, had provided a great deal of care and assistance to the deceased and the deceased’s wife. Eventually, the claimant had moved in with the deceased and his wife.

The claimant alleged that on two separate occasions, five days apart from one another, the deceased performed acts amounting to donationes mortis causa, in favour of the claimant, regarding all h...

TA v The Public Guardian [2024] WTLR 1125

In January and April 2021, KA made lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) for property and affairs and health and welfare respectively, both appointing her daughter, the claimant, as her sole attorney. The certificate required under para 2(1)(e) of Sch 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was provided by X who was the claimant’s ex-mother-in-law and close family friend of KA. On investigation of the making of the LPAs, X stated that she had asked KA if she was happy with the LPAs and KA had not expressed any wishes as to who she wanted to be her attorneys or how they should act. Investigations b...

Williams v Williams & ors [2024] WTLR 1137

In 1986, a farm known as Cefn Coed was purchased by Mr and Mrs Williams and one of their sons, the appellant. There was no express declaration of trust. Mr and Mrs Williams and the appellant were in a partnership and the partnership paid the mortgage on Cefn Coed. The wills of Mr and Mrs Williams dealt with Cefn Coed as though it was held on a tenancy in common in equal shares and Mr Williams was found to have served a notice of severance of any joint tenancy before his death. Mrs Williams and then Mr Williams passed away. It was determined that Cefn Coed was not a partnership asset but,...

Raveendran v Commissioners for HMRC WTLR(w) 2024-05

Leonard & ors v Leonard & ors WTLR(w) 2024-04

BH v JH [2024] WTLR 391

The applicant was the deputy and brother of P, who was represented by the Official Solicitor. P had a lifelong learning disability and the presumption of capacity was displaced. The application was for the variation of a statutory will made in 2008 on behalf of P. There was no dispute as to the terms of the proposed variation or that it was in the best interests of P.

The 2008 statutory will provided for the creation of a discretionary trust for a period of two years less one day, of £1m plus P’s home (worth £600,000) and chattels, in favour of four categories of beneficiaries inc...

BH v JH (costs) [2024] WTLR 403

A deputy had made an application to vary a statutory will and disputed that carers and unidentified charities needed to be served and notified of the same. The Official Solicitor made an application to resolve the dispute on service and the court determined, as argued by the Official Solicitor, that the rules required service of the variation application on carers and unidentified charities but that service on the carers could be dispensed with. The Official Solicitor made an application for the costs of the service issue.

Benjamin v Benjamin & anr [2024] WTLR 411

The claimant was the child of the first defendant (his father) and the second defendant (his mother). On 5 March 1999, the defendants settled shares in the family company (BPL) on themselves as trustees of a discretionary trust for the benefit of the claimant and his brother and their issue.

The claimant’s case was that the defendants had assured him that half of the family business would eventually pass to him, but that he suspected that something had happened which was inconsistent with those assurances. In March 2021, the claimant requested from BPL’s accountants a copy of its ...

Brealey v Shepherd & Co Solicitors [2024] WTLR 427

A testator appointed as executors her brother, Mr Hayward, and the partners of the defendant, a firm of solicitors. At the time of the testator’s death Mr Shepherd and another solicitor, Mr Smyth, were the only partners in the defendant. Mr Hayward and Mr Shepherd took probate. The will did not contain a charging clause.

The claimant was a residuary beneficiary and the occupant of the testator’s home. The claimant refused to move out and an issue also arose over a loan made by the testator to the claimant. To progress these matters and the administration of the estate, the executo...

Byers & ors v Saudi National Bank [2024] WTLR 443

The third claimant (SICL) was a company registered in the Cayman Islands. By transactions which took place between 2002 and 2008 Mr Al-Sanea came to hold shares in five Saudi Arabian companies (the disputed securities) under trusts governed by Cayman Islands law for the benefit of SICL. Cayman and English trust law were the same so far as was relevant to this appeal.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands made a winding-up order against SICL on 18 September 2009 pursuant to a petition presented on 30 July 2009. The first and second claimants were appointed as SICL’s joint liquidato...