Trilogy Management Ltd v Harcus Sinclair [2016] EWHC 170 (Ch)

Summer 2017 #168

This was an application by the defendant firm of solicitors (D) for the particulars of claim and reply to be struck out on the ground that they disclose no answer to the limitation defence or summary judgment dismissing the entirety of the claim on the basis that the claimant (C) has no real prospect of success because the claim is statute barred.

The proceedings arose out of a family dispute concerning a charitable trust (F) established by the deceased (OM). By his will OM left his shares in a Jersey investment company (JY) and in the trustee company of F (YT) to the executors an...

Twin Benefits v Meek [2017] EWHC 177 (Ch)

Summer 2017 #168

This was an application by the claimant for an order for disclosure against a non-party under CPR r.31.17. The underlying action concerned a claim by the assignee of rights from the twin minor children of the first defendant (‘the twins’) concerning a compromise of earlier proceedings (‘the compromise’). The claimant alleged that neither the twins nor their mother was consulted about the compromise, and the compromise did not properly take account of the twins’ interests.

In the late 1990s the first defendant established an employee benefit ...

Adepoju v Akinola [2016] EWHC 3160 (Ch)

March 2017 #167

This is a claim relating to the estate of Medinat Bola Adepoju (the deceased) who died intestate in July 2015. The claimant is the daughter of the deceased and the defendant claimed to be a widower of the deceased.

While this was technically a probate claim, the issue between the parties in the short term was who should administer the estate. Each party feared that the other would favour themselves when administering the estate. The issue as to administration itself turned on whether the defendant and the deceased were validly married. The defendant argued that since he is the sur...

Park v Cho & ors [2014] EWHC 55 (Ch)

March 2017 #167

In November 2007 the claimant stood for election as chairman of the Korean Residents Society (the ‘society’). He was unsuccessful and, the result of the election being disputed, commenced proceedings in the Queen’s Bench Division against the first and second named defendants acting on behalf of the society. The trial took place on 12 March 2008 at the conclusion of which Judge Mackie QC declared that the election had been conducted by the Election Committee in breach of the duties owed to the claimant, gave directions as to the conduct of a further election and ordered ...

The Royal Society v Robinson & ors [2015] EWHC 3442 (Ch)

March 2017 #167

This was a claim to construe a will or, in the alternative to rectify it. Mr Michael Crowley-Milling (the deceased) died on 24 December 2012. His wife had pre-deceased him and he was survived by one niece, Mrs Lorna Joy Robinson and the children of his other niece (who had predeceased him) James Masterman and Rebecca Masterman (the next of kin). The deceased was a distinguished scientist and had decided to leave the bulk of his estate to the Royal Society.

The deceased left two wills: a Swiss will from February 2006 (the Swiss will) and an English will from October 2009 (the 2009 ...

Slattery v Jagger & ors [2015] EWHC 3976 (Ch)

March 2017 #167

The claimants (the executors of the estate of Mr Jagger) applied for construction or alternatively rectification of the last will of Mr Jagger dated 10 June 2011 (the 2011 will). It was common ground that the 2011 will was valid and revoked an earlier will dated 5 April 2007 (the 2007 will).

Mr Jagger made the 2011 will following the death of two of his sons from his first marriage. It was professionally drafted. Under the 2007 will his second wife received a life interest in the matrimonial home. The 2011 will represented a departure from this intention.

The 2011 will cont...

Crabbe v Townsend [2016] EWHC 2450 (Ch)

January/February 2017 #166

The deceased was survived by his daughter (the claimant) and his son (the defendant). The deceased died in 2004 and a grant of probate was extracted in May 2007. By his will the claimant and defendant were appointed as his executors and trustees. Various issues relating to the administration of the estate arose (see para 3). Among these was a portfolio of stocks and shares given to the claimant by the deceased’s will. It was not until February 2013 that the portfolio was assented to the claimant, and then only because she assented it to herself without the defendant’s concurr...

Edkins v Hopkins & ors [2016] EWHC 2542 (Ch)

January/February 2017 #166

The claimant was a friend and business colleague of Philip Hopkins, and the executor and main beneficiary under Mr Hopkins’ will dated 6 June 2014. The will draftsman, a partner in a law firm, attended Mr Hopkins at his home with two members of the firm’s staff who witnessed his signature. During the execution of the will, she noticed that Mr Hopkins was unwell and later that day he was readmitted into hospital. He died ten days later on 19 August 2014, having been diagnosed with unspecified alcoholic liver damage.

The claimant brought a claim to prove the validity of the 2014 wil...

Jump & anr v Lister & anr [2016] EWHC 2160 (Ch)

January/February 2017 #166

John Raymond Winson and Mable Winson (Mr & Mrs Winson) made ‘mirror image’ wills with the first defendant, a solicitor employed by the second defendant, on 17 August 2010 by which, in simple terms (and subject to two minor specific legacies by Mrs Winson), they left their estate to each other but, if that gift failed, left pecuniary legacies to the same named individuals and charities with the net residue passing to the claimants in equal shares. In each will there was a survivorship clause in the following terms:

‘My estate is to be divided as if any person ...

Richards v Worcestershire County Council & anr [2016] EWHC 1954 (Ch)

January/February 2017 #166

The claimant sustained head injuries in a traffic accident in 1984. By 2004, he had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act), and while in hospital, his responsible medical officer under s34 of the 1983 Act completed a supervision application under s25A in respect of him. This explained that after-care under supervision was necessary for the claimant. It provided for the claimant’s attendance at an outpatient clinic, and cooperation with a care plan, but did not include the details of after-care services.

The ...