Christofides v Seddon & ors 1CL10658
March 2014 #137Marula Christofides died on 14 May 2009 having made a will on 22 October 2008 leaving her worldwide residuary estate between her son Andreas, her two daughters Panayiota and Joanna and her granddaughter Benita.
Probate was granted in May 2010 on a net UK estate of £308,253 with a property in London valued then at £300,000 but at the time of trial worth £420,000. The deceased owned two areas of land in Cyprus – one with a house worth €280,000 and one in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus owned by the deceased’s husband. His Honour Judge Hand eventually settled on £125,000 as t...
CR v MZ & ors [2013] EWHC 295 (Fam)
March 2014 #137Previously MZ, the husband (H) and CR, his wife (W) had lived in West Africa. Initially H’s family had been against the marriage but after two children were born to the couple the wife was fully accepted. In late 2005 H and W bought their first flat, in Belgravia (Flat A) for a total cost of £1.62m. The deposit of £155,000 was provided by FZ, H’s father (F), as well as a further £217,000 towards the purchase. The balance came by way of mortgage of £1.24m, which was guaranteed by both H and F. The property was purchased in the name of COG Limited, a company which was set up by...
Ham v Ham & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1301
March 2014 #137The respondents, who had been in a partnership together, were the owners of the land on which their farming business was carried on, together with buildings, live and dead stock, farm machinery and other assets. The accounts recorded that the business was financed by the balance standing to the credit of their capital account with the land recorded year after year at book value. The appellant was bought into the partnership by the respondents on 1 October 1997 and their respective rights and obligations were set out in a partnership deed dated 15 December 1997 (the agreement). The accoun...
Holden-Hindley & ors v Holden-Hindley & anr [2013] EWHC 3053 (Ch)
March 2014 #137The trustees of two family settlements applied to the court for authorisation of action that they proposed to take. David Holden-Hindley created the No 7 Settlement in 1973 for the benefit of his children, issue, his sister-in-law and her children and his sister Doreen Hindley and her children and issue. His brother Airlie set up a similar trust the No 9 Settlement in 1975 but only his children and those of his sister Doreen were beneficiaries. In both settlements illegitimate children were excluded.
In 1983 two deeds of appointments were made under the two settlements for the ben...
Re Jewell; Fox & anr v Jewell & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1152
March 2014 #137A probate claim was brought in respect of the will of the aforesaid deceased for testamentary incapacity; want of knowledge and approval; rectification; a kind of mutual wills claim and in proprietary estoppel. HHJ McCahill QC held that the parties should be required to deal with each of the wills issues in comparatively short statements, without going back over the decades of family history, which would be necessary for a proprietary estoppel claim. He said that he was persuaded that there was a proper role for a trial of preliminary issues, with the second trial, if necessary, ...
Mariner v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 657 (TC)
March 2014 #137Elizabeth Mariner (the appellant) instructed a professional tax advisor to complete and file her 2011 income tax return with HMRC. She was making losses on a let property. The return set these losses against her income from other sources. HMRC did not accept that the losses could be ‘set-off’ in this way. A penalty for underpaid tax as the result of the careless or negligent completion...
Marley v Rawlings & anr [2014] WTLR 299
March 2014 #137Mr Alfred Rawlings and his wife Maureen Rawlings instructed a solicitor to draft their wills in mirror form. Each spouse intended to leave his or her entire estate to the survivor of them, but provided that, should the other have predeceased or survived them for less than a month, their estates should be left to the appellant, who was not related to them but whom they treated as their son. Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ solicitor attended them on 17 May 1999 to enable a due execution of draft wills containing these provisions. By an oversight, their solicitor gave each spouse the other’s draft wil...
Petterson v Ross & ors [2013] EWHC 2724 (Ch)
March 2014 #137Mrs Ross, the testatrix, (T) had three adult children, the defendants: Diana (D), Lorenzo (L) and Gianni (G). T died on 13 July 2008 leaving a will dated 21 October 1988 (the will). At her death T held the following assets:
- a) 13 Kensington Gardens, Ferryhill, County Durham (13KG) where D had lived until she moved in with her partner. At T’s death the property was worth £125,000 but subject to a mortgage with £50,401.52 outstanding. 13KG was bequeathed to D ‘free from any mortgage or legal charge to which the same may be subject at the date of my death’. T...
Re Po; Jo v Go & ors [2013] EWHC 3932 (COP)
March 2014 #137PO was 88 years of age and lacked capacity to decide where she should live. She had four children, the applicant (JO), and the first, second and third respondents (GO, RO and MP). GO and RO were PO’s attorneys for property and affairs but no power of attorney or deputyship order was extant for welfare decisions.
Until the events giving rise to this application PO was habitually resident in England and Wales, living in her own property in Worcestershire with family and local authority assistance. However, in April 2012, GO moved PO to Scotland, initially to live with him but...
Rosenbaum (dec’d) v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 495 (TC)
March 2014 #137The appellant filed a paper tax return late and was liable to a penalty but appealed, arguing that it was merely intended to be a copy of a tax return subsequently filed online and in time. The respondent’s proposition was accepted that a subsequent online timely filing of a tax return by 31 January did not relieve a taxpayer, who had filed a valid paper tax return after 31 October, from a penalty. However, although the nature of the paper document which had been filed was in dispute and central to the issues between the parties, the respondent, on whom the burden of proof lay, fai...