Wrangle v Brunt & anr [2021] WTLR 1143

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2021 #184

This was an appeal from a first instance judgment in proceedings relating to the estate of Dean Brunt (Dean), who tragically died aged 35 on 8 December 2007, when he was hit by a train. On 25 June 2008, the first defendant/appellant (Marlene), who was Dean’s mother, obtained letters of administration in relation to Dean’s estate on the basis that he died intestate.

Over ten years later, in November 2018, the claimant/respondent, the deceased’s uncle by marriage (Bob), started the proceedings, seeking to revoke the letters of administration issued to Marlene, on the basis that a pu...

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 ...

Khan v Mahmood [2021] WTLR 639

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2021 #183

In 1997 the respondent and the appellant jointly purchased a property, contributing to the purchase price equally. The appellant and his family occupied the property. In 2007 the respondent was investigated for benefit fraud, and represented to the local authority that he had no beneficial interest in the property, being merely a nominal trustee for the appellant. He repeated that assertion in evidence before the Magistrates’ Court in defence of criminal charges, and later at the First-tier Tribunal in other proceedings. In March 2007 the respondent signed a form TR1 purporting to ...

Coles v Reynolds & anr WTLR(w) 2021-02

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Todd v Parsons & ors [2020] WTLR 305

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2020 #178

T died in 2009, aged 96 years, leaving two adult children, her son, who was the claimant (C), and her daughter, who was the third defendant (D3). By a will document dated 25 September 2008, T appointed the first defendant (D1) and the second defendant (D2) as her executors. D1 was the daughter of D3 and T’s only grandchild. D2 was the solicitor who drafted the will document. Both remained neutral in the proceedings.

In June 2017, C brought a claim for probate in solemn form of the will document and for an order removing D1 and D2 as executors and appointing an independent personal...

Probate: Promises, promises

The parable of the prodigal son has resonance in modern probate disputes. Alex Troup discusses ‘The judge’s finding that the deceased had deliberately broken the agreement to equalise the balance between her two children explained the difference between her old will and the disputed will.’ The parable of the prodigal son has all the makings …
This post is only available to members.

Parsonage v Parsonage & ors WTLR(w) 2020-02

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Smith & anor v Crawshay WTLR(w) 2019-12

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Case report: CXB v North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2053 (QB)

Memory; documentary records; disputes of fact ‘HHJ Gore QC’s conclusion that it was necessary to subject the documentary record to careful scrutiny by reference to the witness evidence is consistent with both the Gestmin principles and the historical emphasis on the importance of written evidence.’ This was a clinical negligence claim involving a disputed documentary …
This post is only available to members.

Evidence: Vox populi?

Jack Dillon weighs up the worth of witness evidence ‘The lesson, particularly in a commercial context, is that objective realities weigh heavier than witnesses’ insistence about what would or would not have happened.’ A solicitor makes a negligent error in a negotiation between a client and third party. The error leads the client to agree …
This post is only available to members.