Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2014 #138The main action was a contentious probate dispute in which the defendant, who was the younger sister of the deceased, sought to overturn all of his five wills on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity. The deceased had suffered from severe schizophrenia throughout his lifetime. The claimants were the residuary legatees of his final will, entitling them to the lion-share of the deceased’s considerable estate. In his main judgment, the judge accepted that the deceased’s condition was severe. He acknowledged that this placed the burden of proof on the claimants to establis...
In the conclusion to a two-part analysis, Margaret Heathcote examines the procedural aspects of instructing experts and the courts’ approach to the amended rules ‘Do not expect to show up at court and “wing it” so far as expert evidence is concerned – the days where one could make a vague request for expert input …
Continue reading "Expert Evidence: Cautious territory"
This post is only available to members.
In the first of a two-part analysis, Margaret Heathcote sets out the changes to expert evidence introduced earlier this year and the impact seen to date ‘What is ‘necessary’ in care proceedings (the conclusion of which may mean the removal of a child from their birth parents) is likely to differ from what is necessary …
Continue reading "Expert Evidence: Out of necessity"
This post is only available to members.
Robert Weir QC explains the significance of the first High Court decision to consider as a preliminary issue what provisions governed the instruction of experts ‘Rome II provides a set of rules to permit a court to determine what the applicable law is to the claim in tort.’ Rome II is an instrument for harmonising …
Continue reading "Evidence and Procedure: Getting to grips with the substance/procedure divide under Rome II"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2012 #117The applicants (R and J) made a wasted costs application against the respondent solicitors (H) in the context of proceedings known as D v R (Deputy of S) and S [2010] EWHC 2405 (CoP), which had been heard by Henderson J in the Court of Protection concerning S. R was S’s daughter and his deputy. She had brought proceedings in the Chancery Division in S’s name to recover property S had given away to D on the basis of undue influence. S’s wish was that D should retain the property given to her. In that context, D applied for a declaration from the Court of Protection that ...
Gary Lawrenson considers the impact of Jones v Kaney ‘In the Supreme Court, the majority decision, led by Lord Phillips, removed experts’ immunity against claims by their clients. Experts can now be sued for breach of contract or professional negligence in relation to their participation in legal proceedings.’In Jones v Kaney [2011] the Supreme Court …
Continue reading "Expert Evidence: Nowhere to hide"
This post is only available to members.
