References: [2008] EWCA Civ 788
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Appeal against possession order granted to executor against son of deceased living in estate property.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 11 August 2019
Ref: 270810

The post Knowles v Knowles: CA 13 Jun 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2008] EWHC 1587 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Statutes: Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 11 August 2019
Ref: 270955

The post Baynes v Hedger and others: ChD 14 Jul 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2009] EWHC 709 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Behrens HHJ
Ratio: Challenge to testamentary capacity of testator.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 12 August 2019
Ref: 346863

The post Ritchie and Others v Joshlin and Others: ChD 31 Mar 2009 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1961] AC 727
Coram: Lord Reid, Lord Denning
Ratio: The section excluded from liability for estate duty property ‘passing on the death which is situate out of Great Britain if it is shown that the proper law regulating the devolution of the property situate, or the disposition under or by reason of which it passes, is the law neither of England nor of Scotland.’ Issues relating to a disposition of movables must be determined according to the law of the country of domicile of the deceased at the date of his death. The proper law ‘regulating’ a disposition of immovable property for the purposes of section 28(2) was the lex situs.
Lord Denning confirmed that the question of interpretation depends upon the intention of the testator: ‘We are dealing with a will: and, whilst I would agree that the construction of a will depends on the intention of the testator, I would say that in no other respect does his intention determine the law applicable to it.
Let me take first the case where there is a disposition of movable property by will. There is no doubt that the proper law regulating the disposition of movables is the law of the domicile of the testator at the time of his death. In the leading case on this subject Lord Carnworth used the word ‘regulate’ in this very connection. When a person dies domiciled abroad, he said, ‘in every case the succession to personal property will be regulated not according to the law of this country but to that of his domicile’: see Enohin v Wylie. There is perhaps an exception in regard to the construction of his will: for if a question arises as to the interpretation of the will and it should appear that the testator has changed his domicile between making his will and his death, his will may fall to be construed according to the law of his domicile at the time he made it: though in all other respects it would be governed by the law of his domicile at the date of his death.’
Statutes: Finance Act 1949 28(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Re Levick ChD ([1963] 1 WLR 31)
  The proper law ‘regulating’ the disposition of movable property for the purposes of section 28(2) was the law of the testator’s domicile at the time of his death. Plowman J said that the term ‘regulate’ was concerned with the material or essential . .
• Cited – Dellar v Zivy and others ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2266 (Ch))
  Disappointed beneficiaries said they had been told that the deceased would leave certain shares to them. He did not do so, and they said the will had incorrectly interpreted his instructions. The defendants denied that the English court had . .
• Cited – Akers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC ([2017] 1 BCLC 151, [2017] WTLR 373, Bailii, [2017] UKSC 6, [2017] WLR(D) 57, WLRD, Bailii Summary, [2017] 2 All ER 799, [2017] 2 WLR 713, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 97, [2017] BPIR 263, [2017] AC 424, UKSC 2015/0009, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary)
  Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 August 2019
Ref: 259864

The post Re Philipson-Stow: HL 1961 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: (1841) 4 Beav 115 affd Cr and Ph 240, [1841] EWHC Ch J27, [1841] EWHC Ch J82, (1841) Cr and Ph 240, [1841] EngR 629, (1841) 4 Beav 115, (1841) 49 ER 282
Links: Bailii, Bailii, Commonlii
Coram: Lord Cottenham
Ratio: A direction in a will stated that the income from certain shares was to be accumulated and invested until the beneficiary attained the age of 25. On attaining his majority at 21 years, the beneficiary sought termination of the trust, and transfer of the legal title in the property to him.
Held: The beneficiary was entitled to call for the property. The intention of the testator was that the beneficiary would ultimately take the property, but had merely sought to postpone the date on which this would happen. Beneficiaries who are sui juris and together entitled to the whole beneficial interest can put an end to the trust and direct the trustees to hand over the trust property as they may direct: ‘once something has been given to a person the court will not enforce any attempt to keep it out of his grasp until a later date.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Tod v Judith Cobb Lady Barton, William Godfrey Lukes Barton, The Royal Society of Chemistry, In re Barton (Deceased) ChD (Bailii, [2002] EWHC 264 (Ch))
  The deceased was an English scientist who died domiciled in Texas. His beneficiaries in England executed a deed of variation, but this would not be recognised in the law of Texas. The will expressly stated it was subject to the laws of England. . .
• Cited – Goulding and Goulding v James and Daniel CA (Times 07-Feb-97, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1156)
  The family sought approval of a proposed variation of the will to make best advantage of tax allowances. Because the beneficial interests of children would be affected, the court’s approval was necessary. The judge had refused to approve the . .
• Cited – Hunt and Another v McLaren and others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 2386 (Ch))
  Land had been given to a football club under a trust for its exclusive use as such. That land was sold and a new ground acquired and a stadium built, but the land was subject to restrictive covenenats limiting its use to sports, which considerably . .
• Cited – Barbados Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 148, [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 495)
  The creditor had assigned the debt, but without first giving the debtor defendant the necessary notice. A challenge was made to the ability of the assignee to bring the action, saying that the deed of trust appointed to circumvent the reluctance of . .
• Cited – Nelson v Greening and Sykes (Builders) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 1358, Times 22-Jan-08)
  The builders had obtained a charging order for the costs awarded to them in extensive litigation, and a third party costs order but without the third party having opportunity to test the bill delivered. They had agreed to sell land to the defendant, . .
• Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 77 (Ch))
  The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
  Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
• Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1311)
  The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
• See Also – Saunders v Vautier (, Commonlii, [1841] EngR 765, (1841) Cr and Ph 240, (1841) 41 ER 482)
  . .
• Cited – Akers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC ([2017] 1 BCLC 151, [2017] WTLR 373, Bailii, [2017] UKSC 6, [2017] WLR(D) 57, WLRD, Bailii Summary, [2017] 2 All ER 799, [2017] 2 WLR 713, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 97, [2017] BPIR 263, [2017] AC 424, UKSC 2015/0009, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary)
  Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 12 August 2019
Ref: 182790

The post Saunders v Vautier: 7 May 1841 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2006] EWHC 2116 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• See Also – Green v Briscoe (Lawtel 09-May-05, [2005] All ER (D) 96)
  The Court had dismissed an action brought to obtain an order pronouncing against a will, revocation of the probate granted in respect of the will and a declaration of intestacy. The defendant executor had counterclaimed for a grant of probate in . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 14 August 2019
Ref: 263672

The post Briscoe v Green: ChD 13 Jul 2006 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2002] EWHC 3230 (Ch), [2004] 2 FLR 989, [2004] Fam Law 720, [2004] 3 FCR 744, [2003] WTLR 779
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 14 August 2019
Ref: 346766

The post Churchill v Roach and Others: ChD 18 Jul 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2016] UKPC 16, [2016] WLR(D) 314, 2016 SLT 723, 2016 GWD 20-360, [2016] WTLR 1117, [2016] 1 WLR 2870, [2017] 1 All ER 106
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke,Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
Ratio: Her Majesty requires the Board to advise as to (i) who is now entitled to be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill and (ii) whether the evidence resulting from the obtaining of a DNA sample from Sir Steuart Robert Pringle in late 2009 or early 2010 should be admitted in order to determine the first question.
Statutes: Judicial Committee Act 1833 4
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 15 August 2019
Ref: 565714

The post Re Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill: PC 20 Jun 2016 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1906] 2 KB 648
Ratio: The parent of an infant child who dies where the parent has the means to do so, has a responsibility to arrange and pay for the burial.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Approved – Regina v Vann ([1851] 2 Den 325)
  A parent of a child who had not the means of providing for the burial of the body of his deceased child was not liable to be indicted for the misdemeanour of not providing for its burial, even though a nuisance was occasioned by the body remaining . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD ([2004] EWHC 644 (QB), Bailii, Times 12-Apr-04, (2004) 77 BMLR 145, [2004] 2 FLR 365, [2004] 3 FCR 324, [2004] Fam Law 501, [2005] 2 WLR 358, [2005] Lloyd’s Rep Med 1, [2005] QB 50)
  Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
  
• Cited – Dobson and Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority and Newcastle Health Authority CA (Times 15-Jul-96, Gazette 29-Aug-96, [1997] 1 WLR 596, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1301, (1997) 33 BMLR 146,, [1997] 1 FLR 598, [1997] 8 Med LR 357, [1996] 4 All ER 474, [1997] Fam Law 326, [1997] 2 FCR 651)
  A post mortem had been carried out by the defendants. The claimants, her grandmother and child sought damages after it was discovered that not all body parts had been returned for burial, some being retained instead for medical research. They now . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 August 2019
Ref: 195008

The post Clarke v London General Omnibus Co Ltd: 1906 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1930] SC 394
Ratio: The widow sought damages for an unauthorised autopsy carried out upon the body of her late husband.
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

• Cited – AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD ([2004] EWHC 644 (QB), Bailii, Times 12-Apr-04, (2004) 77 BMLR 145, [2004] 2 FLR 365, [2004] 3 FCR 324, [2004] Fam Law 501, [2005] 2 WLR 358, [2005] Lloyd’s Rep Med 1, [2005] QB 50)
  Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
  

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 August 2019
Ref: 195014

The post Hughes v Robertson: 1930 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1931] DLR 676
Coram: Harvey CJA
Ratio: (Canada – Court of Appeal of the Alberta Supreme Court) A widower claimed damages for the unlawful carrying out of an autopsy on the body of the claimant’s deceased wife. The claim was dismissed by the judge at first instance on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action.
Held: The Court allowed the appeal: ‘If then, as seems clearly established, the plaintiff had the right to the custody and control of the remains of his deceased wife any unauthorised interference with that right, such as is alleged, was an invasion of his right and would give a cause of action.’
Jurisdiction: Canada
This case is cited by:

• Cited – AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD ([2004] EWHC 644 (QB), Bailii, Times 12-Apr-04, (2004) 77 BMLR 145, [2004] 2 FLR 365, [2004] 3 FCR 324, [2004] Fam Law 501, [2005] 2 WLR 358, [2005] Lloyd’s Rep Med 1, [2005] QB 50)
  Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
  

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 August 2019
Ref: 195015

The post Edmunds v Armstrong Funeral Home Ltd: 1931 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2008] EWHC 2022 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Patten J
Ratio: Request for pronouncement in solemn form of will.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 August 2019
Ref: 272880

The post Hoare Trustees v Jaques and others: ChD 6 Feb 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2019] EWHC 1976 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Shuman J
Ratio:
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 2
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 August 2019
Ref: 640059

The post Hendry v Hendry and Others: ChD 27 Jun 2019 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2008] EWHC 977 (Ch), [2008] WTLR 1317, [2008] Fam Law 625, [2008] 2 FLR 1956
Links: Bailii
Coram: Paul Chaisty QC HHJ
Ratio: Claim by widow of deceased businessman – interest in former business.
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 August 2019
Ref: 267364

The post Baker v Baker and others: ChD 20 Mar 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: (1840) 3 Moores PCC 282, [1840] EngR 1087, (1840) 3 Moo PC 282, (1840) 13 ER 117
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erskine J
Ratio: The Board emphasised the importance that the Court of Probate should be satisfied that a testatrix had the necessary capacity when she executed the will if the evidence showed that she had lost capacity shortly afterwards. The infirmity of the testator may strengthen certain presumptions which arise against the will in a case where the will is contrary to the previously expressed intentions of the testator as to his testamentary dispositions.
‘in order to constitute a sound disposing mind, a Testator must not only be able to understand that he is by his will giving the whole of his property to one object of his regard; but that he must also have capacity to comprehend the extent of his property, and the nature of the claims of others, whom by his will he is excluding from all participation in that property.’ and
‘Now if their Lordships had found from the other evidence that Mr Baker had, while in a state of health, compared and weighed the claims of his relations, and had formed the deliberate purpose of rejecting them all in favour of his wife, but had omitted to carry that purpose into effect before the attack of illness under which he dies; and that during that illness he had acted upon that previous intention, and executed a Will in question, – less evidence of the capacity to weigh those claims during his illness might have been sufficient to show that the Will propounded really did contain the expression of the mind and will of the deceased.’
Erskine J said: ‘Their Lordships are of opinion that, in order to constitute a sound disposing mind, a testator must not only be able to understand that he is by his will giving the whole of his property to one object of his regard, but he must also have capacity to comprehend the extent of his property, and the nature of the claims of others, whom by his will he is excluding from all participation in that property; and that the protection of the law is in no cases more needed than it is in those where the mind has been too much enfeebled to comprehend more objects than one; and more especially, when that one object may be so forced upon the attention of the invalid as to shut out all others that might require consideration. And, therefore, the question which their Lordships propose to decide in this case is, not whether Mr Baker knew, when he executed this will, that he was giving all his property to his wife, and excluding all his other relations from any share in it, but whether he was at that time capable of recollecting who those relations were, of understanding their respective claims upon his regard and bounty, and of deliberately forming an intelligent purpose of excluding them from any share of his property. If he had not the capacity required, the propriety of the disposition made by the will is a matter of no importance. If he had it, the injustice of the exclusion would not affect the validity of the disposition, though the justice or injustice of the disposition might cast down some light upon the question as to his capacity.’
and ‘that in all cases the party propounding the Will is bound to prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the paper in question does contain the last will and testament of the deceased, and that this obligation is more especially cast upon him when the evidence in the case shows that the mind of the testator was generally, about the time of its execution, incompetent to the exertion required for such a purpose.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Ewing v Bennett CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 342)
  The claimant appealed admission to probate of the will of the deceased, arguing that she had not had testamentary capacity when it was made.
  Held: There was evidence of the beginnings of dementia, but at the tme when she had made the will, the . .
• Approved – Banks v Goodfellow QBD ((1870) LR 5 QB 549)
  The testator suffered from delusions, but not so badly or in such a way as was found to affect his capacity or to influence his testamentary disposition. The judge had given the following direction: ‘The question is whether . . the testator was . .
• Cited – Hoff and others v Atherton CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1554, [2005] WTLR 99)
  Appeals were made against pronouncements for the validity of a will and against the validity of an earlier will. The solicitor drawing the will was to receive a benefit, and had requested an independent solicitor to see the testatrix and ensure that . .
• Cited – Potter v Potter FdNI (Bailii, [2003] NIFam 2)
  The testator’s capacity to make his will was challenged. He had lived alone without electricity, but his doctor said he was known to him and was ‘with it’. Evidence from a member of staff at the solicitor’s office supported the doctor’s description. . .
• Cited – Robin Sharp and Malcolm Bryson v Grace Collin Adam and Emma Adam and others CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 449, [2006] WTLR 1059)
  The testator suffered secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. It was said that he did not have testamentary capacity. He had lost the power of speech but communicated by a speech board. The solicitor had followed appropriate standards in attesting . .
• Cited – Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA (Times 28-Dec-02, [2002] EWCA Civ 1889, Bailii, [2003] 1 WLR 1511, (2003) 73 BMLR 1, [2003] Lloyds Rep Med 244, [2003] PIQR P20, [2003] WTLR 259, [2003] CP Rep 29, [2003] 3 All ER 162, (2004) 7 CCL Rep 5)
  The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
• Cited – Kostic v Chaplin and others ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2298 (Ch))
  The deceased had for several years suffered a delusional disorder. The validity of his last two wills was challenged. In one had had left his entire estate to the Conservative Party.
  Held: The wills were invalid. It was clear that when made, . .
• Cited – Judy Ledger v Wootton and Another ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC B13 (Ch), [2007] EWHC 2599 (Ch), Bailii)
  A grant of probate was challenged, the claimant stating that, at the time of the will, the deceased had lacked testamentary capacity.
  Held: The deceased had a history of mental health difficulties. It was for the person proposing a will to . .
• Cited – Key and Another v Key and Others ChD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch), [2010] 1 WLR 2020, [2010] WTLR 623)
  The will was challenged for want of testamentary capacity. The testator was 89 years old, and the will was made within a week of the death of his wife of 65 years and without the solicitor having taken any proper steps to satisfy himself as to the . .
• Cited – Perrins v Holland and Others; In re Perrins, deceased CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 840, [2010] WLR (D) 196, WLRD, (2010) 13 ITELR 405, [2011] 2 WLR 1086)
  The testator had given instructions for his will and received a draft will. The judge had found that he had capacity to make the will when he gave instructions but not when it was executed. The will having been made in accordance with his . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17 August 2019
Ref: 181900

The post Charles Harwood v Maria Baker: PC 1840 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1908] AC 162, [1908] UKHL 2, 1908 SC (HL) 3, (1908) 15 SLT 857
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Loreburn LC, Lord Macnaghten
Ratio: If a bequest in a will to a class of persons is capable of application by the trustees, or failing them, the court, the gift is not void for uncertainty. Lord Macnaghten said: ‘The testator has taken pains to provide competent judges. It is for the trustees to consider and determine the value of the service on which a candidate may rest his claim to participate in the testator’s bounty.’
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Guild v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL (Gazette 06-May-92, Bailii, [1990] UKHL 10, [1992] 2 AC 310, Bailii, [1992] UKHL 16, [1993] Imm AR 112, [1992] 1 WLR 1052, [1992] 4 All ER 673)
  The will left land for a sports centre to a local authority which no longer existed. If the gift was charitable, the gift would be applied cy pres, but if not it would fail and pass to the family and be subect to Inheritance Tax.
  Held: A gift . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17 August 2019
Ref: 273195

The post Weir v Crum-Brown: HL 6 Feb 1908 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2011] WTLR 231
Coram: Morgan J
Ratio: Morgan J did not think it a relevant consideration when setting the terms of a statutory will under the 2005 Act, that the patient should be remembered for having done the right thing. Under the new arrangements of the Act, the making of the gift and/or the terms of the will are not being made by P but by the court. Furthermore, insofar as there is a dispute between family members, the unsuccessful members are not likely to think that he had done the right thing.
Statutes: Mental Capacity Act 2005
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – NT v FS and Others CoP (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 684 (COP))
  An application was made for a statutory will for the patient. The court considered how it should approach competing suggestions as to the provisions to be included.
  Held: The 2005 Act had changed the basis for such wills fundamentally. The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17 August 2019
Ref: 510002

The post Re G(TJ): 2011 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2018] EWHC 2623 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Henry Carr J
Ratio:
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 18 August 2019
Ref: 628916

The post Lomax and Others v Greenslade: ChD 23 Jul 2018 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2008] EWHC 228 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Briggs J
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 19 August 2019
Ref: 264598

The post Hopper v Hopper and others: ChD 19 Feb 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2008] EWHC 2451 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Blackburne J
Ratio: Challenge to admission of will to probate.
Held: The presumption of due attestation of a will had not been rebutted.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• See Also – Couwenbergh v Valkova CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 676)
  The deceased’s family lived in Europe. The defendant had moved in as tenant and had become confidante and friend over many years. A will had been prepared leaving everything to the defendant. That will had been challenged alleging incorrect . .
• See Also – Couwenbergh v Valkova CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA 145 Civ)
  The will was challenged as to its due execution. Statements had been produced that the two witnesses had not been present when the will was signed, but those witnesses now said that they and not signed the statements.
  Held: The evidence met . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Ahluwalia v Singh and Others ChD ([2012] WTLR 1, Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2907 (Ch))
  The claimant challenged the validity of the will, saying that it had not been validly attested, the two witnesses not being present at the same time despite the attestation clause saying they had been.
  Held: The challenge succeeded. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 19 August 2019
Ref: 276958

The post Couwenbergh v Valkova: ChD 16 Oct 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.