Re Shanavazi [2021] WTLR 1037
Autumn 2021 #184The claimant was the widow of Gohlam Dastagir Shanavazi (the deceased), who had died intestate on 29 December 2011. They had five children of whom four were adults by the time of the hearing. The claimant brought the Part 8 claim on behalf of the youngest child, her minor son Ilyas Firas Shanavazi, who was now 16.
Under German law Ilyas was entitled to a 1/10th share of his father’s estate. The claim was brought to allow the claimant on behalf of Ilyas to enter into a contract of sale of a property in Germany and to convey the property to the purchaser.
The claimant, the de...
Smith & anr v Michelmores Trust Corporation Ltd & ors [2021] WTLR 1051
Autumn 2021 #184The testatrix (T), whose husband predeceased her, was survived by her four children, B1, B2, B3 and B4. T had appointed B3 and the partners of a solicitor firm as the executors of her will. She left the residue of her estate on trust to be divided into four equal shares: one for the benefit of each of B1, B2 and B3, and the fourth upon discretionary trusts, which included a wide power of appointment, for the benefit of B4 and his children and remoter issue. At the time of the hearing, B4 had three adult children and one minor grandchild. T died in 2010 and probate of her will was granted...
Smith & anr v Michelmores Trust Corporation Ltd & ors (costs) [2021] WTLR 1083
Autumn 2021 #184A testatrix (T) left the residue of her estate (the trust fund) on trust to be divided into four equal shares, directing that one of them (the share fund) be held upon discretionary trusts for the benefit of her son, B, and his children and remoter issue. The other three shares were given to her other three children absolutely. The will trustees (who were the executrix of T’s will and another person appointed by her as a co-trustee) sought the approval of the court for a proposed appointment of all of the liquid funds in the share fund to B absolutely. The judge refused to approve the pr...
Thomas v Thomas & ors [2021] WTLR 1091
Autumn 2021 #184Elizabeth Thomas (Elizabeth) passed away in 2018, leaving a will dated 30 September 2004. She was survived by her three sons, David, Owen and Gareth, and her 13 grandchildren.
Her will included, among others the following terms:
‘If my husband has [predeceased me]… I leave my property to be divided amongst my sons and their heirs. At present, these are as follows:… Sons — Owen, Gareth and David; their children are Owen/Fay; Gareth/Gwennan and Samuel and Raphael; David/Ellen Christie Thomas and Jens Rhys Thomas… ’
‘The proceeds fro...
Titcombe v Ison [2021] WTLR 1101
Autumn 2021 #184D was a close friend of the deceased and the sole beneficiary under the deceased’s will. C was the deceased’s niece. C claimed that a collection of jewellery in the estate was impressed with a secret trust in her favour, or alternatively that D was estopped from denying that the jewellery was held for C’s benefit.
C alleged that, in a Skype conversation in March 2013, the deceased had suggested that she wanted C to have her jewellery, C had said this was very generous and that she would love to receive it; that the deceased had said that rather than leaving it to C in the will, sh...
Ugolor & ors v Ugolor [2021] WTLR 1127
Autumn 2021 #184The parties were siblings. The application concerned the estate of their mother, PF. PF had divorced from the parties’ father in 1980, after which PF had continued to live in a five-bed council property (the Property) with the children until they grew up. In 2004, PF acquired the freehold for £192,000. At some point, PF adopted three other children.
In around 2009 (on the defendant’s (D’s) evidence), D moved PF out of the Property and into one of D’s properties. According to the claimants’ evidence, PF was already showing signs of paranoia, and in 2015 D was taken to court by a ne...
Wrangle v Brunt & anr [2021] WTLR 1143
Autumn 2021 #184This was an appeal from a first instance judgment in proceedings relating to the estate of Dean Brunt (Dean), who tragically died aged 35 on 8 December 2007, when he was hit by a train. On 25 June 2008, the first defendant/appellant (Marlene), who was Dean’s mother, obtained letters of administration in relation to Dean’s estate on the basis that he died intestate.
Over ten years later, in November 2018, the claimant/respondent, the deceased’s uncle by marriage (Bob), started the proceedings, seeking to revoke the letters of administration issued to Marlene, on the basis that a pu...