Sangha v Sangha & ors WTLR(w) 2021-12

Web Only

Mundil-Williams v Mundil-Williams & ors WTLR(w) 2021-11

Web Only

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

Web Only

Graham v Lynch & ors WTLR(w) 2021-09

Web Only

Clipperton & anr v HMRC WTLR(w) 2021-08

Web Only

Wills & anr v Sowray WTLR(w) 2021-07

Web Only

Hinduja v Hinduja & ors WTLR(w) 2021-06

Web Only

The parties were four brothers. The claimant was the eldest brother and patriarch of the family. The litigation generally concerned the legal effectiveness or otherwise of two letters, by which the brothers had, inter alia, appointed one another as executors, and had stated that assets held in the name of any individual brother belonged to all four. Through an oversight, the claimant’s advisers had failed to file a certificate of suitability from his litigation friend (and daughter) when the claim was originally made, as required by CPR 21.5. A certificate was later filed togeth...

Guest & anr v Guest WTLR(w) 2021-05

Web Only

The respondent (who had been the claimant at first instance) was the eldest son of the two appellants. He had worked on the family farm full-time for some 33 years, until his relationship with his parents deteriorated. The respondent then brought proceedings against the appellants seeking a declaration of his entitlement to a beneficial interest in the farm on the basis of an alleged proprietary estoppel. At first instance, the court found in his favour, concluding that the first appellant had consistently and over time led the respondent to believe that he would inherit a sufficient sta...

Ralph v Ralph WTLR(w) 2021-04

Web Only

A house was purchased in the joint names of the defendant and his son, the claimant. At least part of the reason for the claimant’s inclusion was that it allowed the defendant to benefit from a mortgage needed to finance the purchase. The TR1 bore an ‘X’ in Box 11 which appeared next to the words ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant sought a declaration that the property was held as described by Box 11 and an order for sale. The defendant maintained in a number of witness statements that the ticking of Box 1...

Mackay v Wesley WTLR(w) 2021-03

Web Only