BH v JH (costs) [2024] WTLR 403

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2024 #195

A deputy had made an application to vary a statutory will and disputed that carers and unidentified charities needed to be served and notified of the same. The Official Solicitor made an application to resolve the dispute on service and the court determined, as argued by the Official Solicitor, that the rules required service of the variation application on carers and unidentified charities but that service on the carers could be dispensed with. The Official Solicitor made an application for the costs of the service issue.

Held:

  1. (1) Each case must be considered on i...

Service: Glosses, explications and reformulations

Alexander Halban reports on clarification by the Court of Appeal of the test for service out of the jurisdiction ‘The test is flexible and, in unclear cases, the third limb allows a claimant to establish jurisdiction with plausible evidence, even if the judge cannot resolve disputed issues.’ The English court’s jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled …
This post is only available to members.

Service: Suing unnamed defendants and approaches to alternative service

Benjamin Williams QC and Ben Smiley consider judicial guidance about how and when service can be effected ‘This was the first occasion on which the basis and extent of the jurisdiction to bring a claim against an unnamed defendant had been considered by the Supreme Court or the House of Lords.’ The Supreme Court has …
This post is only available to members.

Service: Out of reach?

John Oxley looks at issues of service and set-aside where a party is overseas and only partially engaged with the proceedings ‘It was the contention of the husband that the 1965 Convention, as implemented through the rules in this jurisdiction, was mandatory and exclusive when service was effected abroad.‘ In Wilmot v Maughan [2017], the …
This post is only available to members.

AAZ v BBZ [2017] WTLR 765

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

AAZ (W) applied for financial orders ancillary to her divorce from BBZ (H). H was the sole director of the second respondent C Ltd, a Cypriot registered company and the trustee of a Bermudian Discretionary Trust (the trust). P Ltd, the third respondent, is a Panamian company which H said was within the trust. P Ltd was said to hold the bulk of the wealth in the case. None of the respondents took any part in the trial. H was in breach of several court orders, including one compelling his personal attendance for the duration of the trial.

H and W had been married since 1993 when the...

Service: Forward thinking

Joanne Hall looks at service outside the jurisdiction and the impact of the digital age ‘If it could be shown that a respondent did not receive an e-mail then it would be unfair to presume service, but the majority of people, of all generations, are now actively engaged in technology.’Technology undoubtedly reigns supreme in our …
This post is only available to members.