Cardigan v Moore & anr [2012] EWHC 1024 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121At the end of the 1940s, the Savernake Estate, which was the subject of these proceedings, was held by a company owned by the 7th and 8th Marquesses of Ailesbury. Between 1949 and 1951 the company was replaced by a partnership. There was a conveyance executed in 1951 by which the estate was conveyed to the Marquesses on trust for sale as part of their partnership. The partnership property also included the family collection of paintings and other chattels. By 1963, there was an agreement that the partnership would be carried on by the 8th Marquess, who had a 51% share, and the trustees f...
Gregg & anr v Pigott & ors [2012] EWHC 732 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121The court was asked to construe the phrase ‘statutory next of kin’ in a settlement that was executed in 1948. It was common ground that, under the classic rules of construction, that phrase would have excluded adopted children because the intestacy rules in 1948 did not benefit adopted children. However, the adopted children argued that they were entitled to capital and income under the trust in preference to their distant cousins who would have benefited under the intestacy rules as enacted in 1948. The adopted children argued that to prevent them benefiting would be a breac...
HMAG v Charity Commission & ors FTC/84/2011
July/August 2012 #121A Notice of Reference dated 27 January 2011 was made by Her Majesty’s Attorney General following concerns expressed by the Charity Commission that the Charities Act 2006 (2006 Act) had cast doubt on the continued charitable status of certain charitable trusts. The trusts affected were trusts for the relief of poverty where the class of potential beneficiaries were defined by a family relationship, employment or former employment status or membership of an unincorporated association. There were 11 parties and 19 interveners. Other than the Charity Commission, each of the parties was...
Lilleyman v Lilleyman & anr [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121Mrs Barbara Lilleyman applied for reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband Mr Roy Lilleyman pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act). Nigel and Christopher Lilleyman, who were Mr Lilleyman’s sons from a previous marriage, were the executors of Mr Lilleyman’s estate under his will dated 20 May 2008. Nigel and Christopher Littleman were the principal beneficiaries of Mr Lilleyman’s estate and were the defendants to Mrs Lilleyman’s application.
Mr and Mrs Lilleyman had each been married previously and each had two...
Lilleyman v Lilleyman & anr (costs) [2012] EWHC 1056 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121Briggs J gave judgment in relation to costs occasioned by Mrs Barbara Lilleyman’s successful claim for reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband, reported as Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012] WTLR 1007.
There had been extensive without prejudice negotiations and offers (both Part 36 offers and without prejudice offers) had been made by both sides. On 27 July 2011, the defendants had made two simultaneous offers: a Part 36 offer (the July Part 36 offer) and a without prejudice offer (the July without prejudice offer). The defendants made a further without ...
Public Trustee v Butler & anr [2012] EWHC 858 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121The public trustee brought a Part 8 claim concerning the construction of the will dated 22 June 1967 of Saral Kumar Bose (testator). The testator had been born in India on 3 May 1893 and had subsequently moved to England where he had worked as an electrical engineer for London Underground. He was married to Florence Katie Bose (widow) and had died childless on 13 September 1972. The widow had died on 23 May 1998. At the time of his death, the net value of the testator’s estate was £137,307 and on 17 September 2012 it comprised investments of £581,150 with unapplied income of £265,6...
Rai & ors v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2012] EWHC 1111 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha (Sabha), an incorporated registered charitable association, was based at a temple in Southall. Ravidassias were followers of Shri Guru Ravidass Ji (b 1377), some of whose teachings were incorporated in the Shri Guru Granth Sahib (the Granth). The constitution of 14 December 2007 set out the objects of the Sabha which were the worship of God in accordance with the teachings and philosophy, mission and principles of Shri Guru Ravidass Ji derived from the Granth and research of Holy Scriptures of Shri Guru Ravidass Ji. Over the years such research had uncovered othe...
Rondel v Robinson Estate & ors [2011] ONCA 493 (CanLII)
July/August 2012 #121Blanca Robinson, the testator (T), owned property in Spain, England and Canada. She executed a will in 2002 intended to deal only with her European property (the 2002 Spanish will). By this she granted a life interest in her London flat to Dr Richard Rondel, the Appellant (A), with whom she had a long relationship and made it clear she had made another will dealing with her property outside Europe. In 2005, T sent her lawyer drafting instructions regarding a Canadian will (the 2005 Canadian will). The instructions related to the ‘entire residue of [her] estate’. Her lawyer, M...
WF v HF [2012] EWHC 438 (Fam)
July/August 2012 #121H and W married in December 1993 when W was 32 and H was 62. They have three children aged between 17 and 12. H’s first wife died and he had four children, (the elder children) from that marriage – all now adults aged over 35. His second marriage ended in divorce, but he had no continuing financial ties to his second wife. W had not been married before. Her limited assets, £152,000, the net sale proceeds of her flat, had been invested in an investment portfolio supplemented by contributions from H (including a transfer of shares worth £2.477m). H was the chairman of a com...
Re Y Trust [2011] JRC 155A
July/August 2012 #121The court had previously sanctioned an apportionment of a trust fund between A in the sum of £1.9m (part of which would comprise writing off a £300,000 loan due from him), C in the sum of £0.5m and a US Trust for the benefit of D, F and E in the sum of £1.0m. At that time, there was, in the trust fund, cash in the sum of £3.4m and it was expected that after the apportionment there would be a surplus of approximately £300,000. A was disaffected with that decision. Subsequently, it transpired that after C had received her £0.5m and a further loan had been made to A there was insufficient c...