Equiom (Isle of Man) Ltd & ors v Velarde & ors [2022] WTLR 109
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186Under a settlement made in 1974 by the deceased’s father, the deceased became the life tenant of a fund, over which property she had a power of appointment exercisable in favour of her children by deed revocable or irrevocable, or by will. In 1981, by a deed of appointment with effect from her death, the deceased appointed the fund between her three children. By a deed of revocation in 1997, expressed to be supplemental to the settlement and the 1981 deed of appointment, with effect from her death, the fund was appointed on trust for only two of her three children. The deceased made her ...
Partington v Rossiter [2022] WTLR 257
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186The deceased was domiciled in Russia and entitled to assets in Jersey. He made a will in the UK in 2013. He had initially prepared a draft himself, which defined his estate as his property, money and investments in the UK, and made specific legacies to his children in respect of his Jersey assets. The deceased’s solicitor advised him that the will did not need to refer to specific assets and it was redrafted. Clause 1 of the executed will stated ‘I confirm that this will only has effect in relation to my UK assets’. It divided the residuary estate equally between his children. The deceas...
Equiom (Isle of Man) Ltd & ors v Velarde & ors [2021] WTLR 855
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2021 #184The claimants were the trustees of a settlement settled by the deceased’s father. The defendants were the deceased’s three children. Under the terms of the settlement the deceased enjoyed a special power of appointment which could be exercised in respect of property described in the fund, whether by deeds revocable or irrevocable or by will or codicil. The deceased had exercised this power twice. First, by a deed of appointment in 1981, with effect from her death, the deceased appointed the fund between the three defendants. Second, by a deed of revocation in 1997, expressed to be supple...
Clarke-Sullivan v Clarke-Sullivan [2021] WTLR 109
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182The claimant and the deceased, who both originated from New Zealand, were married. They lived in London from 2006-10 and in Dubai from 2010-15, returning to London before the deceased’s death in 2019.
In 2014, the claimant and the deceased created a discretionary trust under the laws of New Zealand, with New Zealand being the initial forum of administration (the trust). The beneficiaries included the claimant and the deceased, their future issue and organisations that were deemed to be charitable under New Zealand law. The trust was established to hold property intended to be purc...
Re Wales [2020] WTLR 1121
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2020 #180The deceased died on 17 February 2015 as a widower with no children. He left a will dated 22 December 2008. The claimants were his executors.
Clause 7 of the will left the residuary estate to ‘such all of my nephew’s and niece’s children’. At the date of his death, the deceased had two blood nephews and two blood nieces, and also three nephews by marriage and one niece by marriage. A further nephew by marriage had died in 1992 leaving a son. The claimants sought directions as to whether the gift was just to the nieces and nephews by blood, or whether it was also to the nieces and ...
Naylor & anr v Barlow & ors [2019] WTLR 981
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2019 #176The claimants were practising solicitors and trustees of a trust created by the will of John Hine (T) who died on 4 January 1992. T had had four children. Two, Beryl Clowes and John Hine, were the third and fourth defendants. One, Philip Hines, pre-deceased T leaving two children, Judith Barlow and Janet Lomax, the first and second defendants. The fourth, Basil Hine, had survived T but died before the proceedings were issued leaving a widow, Barbara Hine, who was the fifth defendant.
T had been the sole freehold owner of the family farm, Brown Edge Farm. Clause 3 of his will devis...
Slattery v Jagger & ors [2015] EWHC 3976 (Ch)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2017 #167The 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...
Rawstron & anr (executrices of the estate of Lucian Freud) v Freud [2014] EWHC 2577 (Ch)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143Lucian Freud (the deceased) achieved international recognition as an outstanding painter and draughtsman, and he acquired considerable wealth over the course of his long and successful life. His final will was dated 10 May 2006 (the 2006 will), superseding his previous will of 25 June 2004 (the 2004 will). Both wills were professionally drafted. His residuary estate, after payment of legacies and inheritance tax, was estimated at around £42m.
The claim was brought by the claimants under CPR Part 8 in their capacity as executrices of the deceased’s final will. The first cl...
Loring v Woodland Trust [2013] EWHC 4400 (Ch)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | May 2014 #139The testatrix, T, died on 1 September 2011 leaving an estate with a net value of £680,805. Her will, dated 2 February 2001, included provision for a nil rate band legacy for her children and grandchildren under clause 5 which stated:
‘MY TRUSTEES shall set aside out of my residuary estate assets or cash of an aggregate value equal to such sum as is at the date of my death the amount of my unused nil rate band for inheritance tax and to hold the same for such of the following as shall survive me.’
The residue was left to the first defendant, the Woodland Trust ...
Joshi & ors v Mahida [2013] EWHC 486 (Ch)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2013 #130Kiritkumar Mahendersinh Mahida (testator) and his wife, the defendant, owned (inter alia) freehold property at 148-152 Leytonstone Road London as beneficial joint tenants. They were, however, separated when the testator made his last will (will) on 17 July 2002. After appointing the first and second claimants his executors and trustees, the testator gave certain property to his brother, the third claimant, and his three sons, the fourth to sixth claimants. In particular, by clause 3(c) he gave them an interest in the property at Leytonstone Road, but unfortunately expressed the ...