References: [2001] WTLR 939
Ratio: The father had given his now elderly daughter a house. The parties disputed whether the gift operated as a portion.
Held: While such a substantial gift was capable of being a portion, there was evidence that the father regarded his daughter as having ‘earned’ the gift through her long years of caring for him and his wife.

Last Update: 14 March 2017
Ref: 510023

The post Casimir v Alexander: 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2013] EWHC 1725 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Keyser QC HHJ
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 14 March 2017
Ref: 511049

The post Evans and Others v Lloyd and Another: ChD 24 Jun 2013 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2002] EWHC 1080 (Ch), [2002] WTLR 1105
Links: Bailii
Coram: Blackburne J VC
Ratio: Blackburne J discussed what would amount to a clerical error so as to allow rectification: ‘The essence of the matter is that a clerical error occurs when someone, who may be the testator himself, or his solicitor, or a clerk or a typist, writes something which he did not intend to insert or omits something which he intended to insert. . . The remedy is only available if it can be established not only that the will fails to carry out the testator’s instructions but also what those instructions were.’
Statutes: Administration of Justice Act 1982 2091)(a)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 2, [2014] 2 WLR 213, [2014] WTLR 299, 16 ITELR 642, [2014] 1 All ER 807, [2014] WLR(D) 18, [2014] Fam Law 466, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0057, SC Summary, SC)
  A husband and wife had each executed the will which had been prepared for the other, owing to an oversight on the part of their solicitor; the question which arose was whether the will of the husband, who died after his wife, was valid. The parties . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 March 2017
Ref: 520890

The post Bell v Georgiou and Another: ChD 28 May 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: (1885) 28 ChD 552
Ratio: An example of a gift which is made under a special consideration is where the gift satisfies a particular moral duty identified in the will.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Barraclough v Mell and others ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC B17 (Ch))
  Moneys due under a will had been misdistributed. The correct beneficiary sought repayment. The executor sought to rely upon a trustee exemption clause.
  Held: the tustee exemption clause was effective to protect the executor as such. She had . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 March 2017
Ref: 236343

The post In re Pollock; Pollock v Worrall: 1885 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1917] P 256
Coram: Hill J
Ratio: Hill J said: ‘when it is proved that a will has been read over to or by a capable testator, and he then executes it’, the ‘grave and strong presumption’ of knowledge and approval ‘can be rebutted only by the clearest evidence.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Approved – In re Morris Deceased ChD ([1971] P 62, [1970] 1 All ER 1057, [1970] 2 WLR 865)
  A mistake was made in the drafting of a codicil by which, inter alia, the testatrix had revoked cl 7 of her will. It was clear from the evidence that the testatrix had never intended to revoke the whole of that clause but only to revoke the . .
• Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 1430, [2010] NPC 126, [2011] 3 WLR 85, [2011] WTLR 251, [2011] Ch 380)
  The court considered the authorities as to the capacity to make a will, and gave detailed guidance.
  Held: As a matter of common sense and authority, the fact that a will has been properly executed, after being prepared by a solicitor and read . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 March 2017
Ref: 450212

The post Gregson v Taylor: ChD 1917 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2014] EWCA Civ 280
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sullivan, McFarlane, Lewison LJJ
Ratio: ‘The issue raised on this appeal is whether the late Mrs Constance Simon who died on 15 January 2009 (a) had testamentary capacity and (b) knew and approved the contents of her will when she executed it at or immediately after her 88th birthday party on 18 December 2005. The judge (Mr Nicholas Strauss QC) answered both those questions in the affirmative. One of Mrs Simon’s sons, Robert Simon, appeals. ‘

Last Update: 15 March 2017
Ref: 522398

The post Simon v Byford and Others: CA 13 Mar 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2014] EWCA Civ 412
Links: Bailii
Coram: Richards, Briggs LJJ
Ratio: Application for leave to appeal against a finding that the will at issue had not been produced as a result of undue influence and or fraud.

Last Update: 15 March 2017
Ref: 523624

The post Lewis v Lewis: CA 8 Apr 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2014] ScotCS CSOH_69
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord McEwan
Ratio: Application for production and reduction of a will and confirmation following thereon and on an esto basis a pro tanto reduction.

Last Update: 15 March 2017
Ref: 523710

The post Hann v Howatson: SCS 11 Apr 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch), [2017] 4 WLR 32, [2016] WLR(D) 685
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Coram: Kleen HHJ
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17-Mar-17
Ref: 577844

The post Kunicki and Another v Hayward: ChD 16 Dec 2016 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2015] EWCA Civ 797, [2016] 1 All ER 932, [2015] WTLR 1399, [2015] 2 FCR 547, [2015] Fam Law 1196, [2015] 2 FLR 1409
Links: Bailii
Coram: Arden, Rymer LJJ, Sir Colin Rimer
Ratio:
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• See Also – Ilott v Mitson and Others CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 346)
  The claimant, the estranged adult daughter of the deceased, had claimed under the 1975 Act. The judge made an order for payment of £50,000 by way of capitalisation of maintenance. The claimant appealed saying she should have received more, and . .
• Appeal From – Ilott v Mitson and Others FD ([2015] 1 FLR 291, Bailii, [2014] EWHC 542 (Fam))
  The claimant sought to appeal against a decision on quantum made under the 1975 Act. The court had awarded her £50k in capital by way of maintenance from her mother’s estate, where the mother had left the estate to animal charities. She had . .
• Cited – Re Christie (deceased) ([1979] Ch 168, [1979] 1 All ER 546)
  In an application under the 1975 Act, the judge treated maintenance as being equivalent to providing for the well-being or benefit of the applicant.
  Mr Vivian Price QC said: ‘ ‘although reasonable financial provision means provision for the . .
• Cited – Re Dennis deceased ChD ([1981] 2 All ER 140)
  The courts have declined to define the word ‘maintenance’ closely. ‘Maintenance’ connotes only those payments which will directly or indirectly enable the applicant in the future to discharge the cost of his daily living at whatever standard of . .
• Cited – Snapes v Aram; Wade etc, In re Hancocks (Deceased) CA (Gazette 20-May-98, Times 08-May-98, Gazette 03-Jun-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 764, [1998] 2 FLR 346)
  The adult daughter of the deceased claimed under the 1975 Act.
  Held: The appeal against the award in favour of the daughter failed. An adult child may not be absolutely unentitled to claim for provision from an estate, where it can be shown . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17 March 2017
Ref: 550609

The post Ilott v Mitson and Others: CA 27 Jul 2015 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1929] 1 Ch 716
Ratio: Intermediate income is not payable on a contingent pecuniary legacy unless there is an express testamentary provision to the contrary. The interest falls into residue until the legacy vests.

Last Update: 17 March 2017
Ref: 533630

The post Re Raine: 1929 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2014] EWHC 2294 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Simon J
Ratio: The claimant appealed against a decision on disclosure of documents in the context of their claims as to the contents of their late father’s estate. They sought disclosure of attendance notes made by the first defendant, the deceased’s former solicitor.

Last Update: 19 March 2017
Ref: 534084

The post Kousouros v O’Halloran and Another: ChD 10 Jul 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2014] ScotCS CSOH_114
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lady Wise
Ratio:

Last Update: 19 March 2017
Ref: 534160

The post Nicolson Bros v MacDiarmid Anderson As Executor Nominate of The Late Patricia Anderson: SCS 11 Jul 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1948] Ch 221
Coram: Jenkins J
Ratio: (i) an annuitant under a will was bound by a decision of the Court of Appeal in earlier litigation, where the will trustees and he were parties, as to the effect of tax legislation on his rights, but (ii) another annuitant was entitled to rely on a subsequent, more favourable, decision of the House of Lords on the point in a different case, because he had not been a party to the earlier litigation.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 46, [2013] 3 WLR 299, [2014] 1 AC 160, [2013] WLR(D) 265, [2013] RPC 29, [2013] 4 All ER 715, Baili Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2010/0013, SC Summary, SC)
  Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding andpound;49,000,000 for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20 March 2017
Ref: 535290

The post In re Waring, Westminster Bank v Burton-Butler: ChD 1948 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

lim_walia1407
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 1076, [2014] WLR(D) 339
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Coram: Ardn, McFarlane, McCombe LJJ
Ratio: The parties disputed a claim under the 1975 Act. Immediately before her death, the deceased had, because of her medical condition, a vested right to bring forward an insurance benefit, but that right had ceased upon her death. The court had found that the sum available was part of the estate for the purposes of the 1975 Act. The policy was a joint-life furst death policy. Thr 1975 Act referred to the value of the estate immediately before the death.
Held: The appeal succeeded (McCombe LJ dissenting). Section 9 asked two questions: did she have a severable interest in the terminal illness benefit, and what was that value immediately before her death. The policy made no provision for the advanced benefit to be paid to one only of the insured lives. The deceased had a severable interest which remained contingent until a claim was made. Under section 9(1) the valuation of a severable interest should take into account the imminence of death. The valuation should take into account events occurring after the date at which valuation was to occur. Because no claim had been made the value immediately before the death was nil.
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
This case cites:

• Appeal from – Lim and Others v Walia ChD (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 4187 (Ch))
  The court was asked: ‘where the proceeds of a fixed term joint life policy are paid over as the result of the death of the first of the joint lives insured, but in circumstances where it is to be assumed that the payment of the sum insured might . .
• Cited – Powell v Osbourne CA ([1993] 1 FCR 797, [1993] 1 FLR 1001)
  The deceased had separated from his wife and was cohabiting with Miss Osbourne. The deceased and Miss Osbourne purchased a property as joint tenants, with the assistance of a mortgage. The purchase price had been andpound;91,000 and the mortgage was . .
• Cited – Murphy (By Her Litigation Friend Stockmont) v Holland CA ([2003] EWCA (Civ) 1862, Bailii, [2004] 1 FCR 1)
  A married couple had taken out an insurance policy on their joint lives. The policy was maintained after they divorced. On his death, his child by the later marriage claimed a share in the policy under the 1975 Act.
  Held: (Chadwick LJ . .
• Cited – Dingmar v Dingmar CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 942, [2006] 3 WLR 1183, [2007] Ch 109, [2007] 2 All ER 382)
  A house was held upon joint tenancy between the deceased and one of his sons. The transfer into joint names took effect just before the deceased married the claimant. They lived at the property with her children. Seven years after the death, the son . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20 March 2017
Ref: 535401

The post Lim (An Infant) v Walia: CA 29 Jul 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

rawstron_freudChD1407
References: [2014] EWHC 2577 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Richard Spearman QC
Ratio: The court considered the construction of a point in the deceased’s will. The clause said: ‘I GIVE all the residue of my estate (out of which shall be paid my funeral and testamentary expenses and my debts) and any property over which I have a general power of appointment to the said Diana Mary Rawstron and the said Rose Pearce jointly’. The executors said that this was not an absolute gift but was subject to a secret trust. The defendant said that it was a half secret trust which failed, so that the residue fell into intestacy.
Held: A secret trust was one where both the terms and very existence of te trust was hidde. A half secret trust was where the terms only were hidden, but not the fact of the trust. The gift in clause 6 was expressed as a simple gift of residue, and clause 6 contained no mention of a trust. The new will change dthe relevant wordings, and it was unrealistic to suggest that Lucian Freud did not have an appreciation of secret trusts.
In the light of (a) the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in clause 6 of the Will, (b) the overall purpose of the Will, (c) the other provisions of the Will, (d) the material factual matrix when the Will was made and (e) common sense, and the Claimants’ interpretation of clause 6 of the Will was to be preferred to that suggested by the Defendant. The claim therefore succeeded.
Statutes: Administration of Justice Act 1982 21
This case cites:

• Cited – Saltmarsh v Barrett HL ([1861] EngR 816, Commonlii, (1861) 3 De G F & J 279, (1861) 45 ER 885)
  A testator after directing payment of his debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and legacies, bequeathed some legacies to charities, and gave to three persons legacies of nineteen guineas each, and appointed them executors. He then bequeathed . .
• Cited – Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Sharp and Others CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 1474)
  The Society appealed against an order construing a will. The will had made a gift of the maximum allowed before payment of inheritance tax, and then a gift of a house. The Society argued that the house gift should be deducted before calculation of . .
• Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 2, [2014] 2 WLR 213, [2014] WTLR 299, 16 ITELR 642, [2014] 1 All ER 807, [2014] WLR(D) 18, [2014] Fam Law 466, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0057, SC Summary, SC)
  A husband and wife had each executed the will which had been prepared for the other, owing to an oversight on the part of their solicitor; the question which arose was whether the will of the husband, who died after his wife, was valid. The parties . .
• Cited – Williams v Arkle HL ((1875) LR 7 HL 606)
  The testator had a sister, a wife, and two illegitimate children. His appointed George Arkle (‘GA’), if GA should survive him, his executor and trustee, but if GA should die in his lifetime he appointed Benjamin Arkle (‘BA’). He then gave ‘the . .
• Cited – In re Rees CA ([1950] 1 Ch 204)
  The testator appointed a friend and his solicitor as executors and trustees of his will. He devised and bequeathed the whole of his property ‘(subject to payment of my funeral and testamentary expenses and debts) unto my trustees absolutely they . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20 March 2017
Ref: 535481

The post Rawstron and Another (Executrices of The Estate of Lucian Freud) v Freud: ChD 30 Jul 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2014] ScotCS CSIH_69
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lady Smith, Lord Drummond Young, Lord McGhie
Ratio: The deceased’s former partner of many years claimed after his death for money from his estate. The court agreed, but decided that a house in in Ireland belong to the deceased had not been part of the estate, being out of the jurisdiction, and that therefore the ‘net intestate estate’ could not support a payment.

Last Update: 20 March 2017
Ref: 535589

The post Kerr v Mangan and Others: SCS 25 Jul 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: (1875) LR 7 HL 606
Coram: Lord Cairns LC, Lord Hatherley, Lord Chelmsford
Ratio: The testator had a sister, a wife, and two illegitimate children. His appointed George Arkle (‘GA’), if GA should survive him, his executor and trustee, but if GA should die in his lifetime he appointed Benjamin Arkle (‘BA’). He then gave ‘the following legacies’: andpound;1000 each to GA and BA; andpound;2000 to a great nephew; andpound;100 to his wife, and andpound;100 apiece to his two children. After the gift of other legacies, he gave annuities to his wife and to his two children subject to restrictions as to anticipation, and an annuity to his sister Mary Williams. He then gave his freehold and leasehold property (specially described), ‘and all other my real estate and the residue of my personal estate’ (subject to two debts due to his sister) ‘unto the said GA for all my estate and interest therein respectively if he shall be alive at my decease, but if he shall die in my lifetime, then I give my said real estate and residuary personal estate unto BA for all my estate and interest therein respectively.’ He empowered his trustee to retain or change his investments, to be free from all responsibility on that account, to employ accountants and receivers, to be the guardian of his children during their minority, and he directed that the trustee should possess all powers granted to trustees by the 23 and 24 Vict. c. 145 (Lord Cranworth’s Act).
Held: (Lord Chelmsford dissenting) The gift of the real estate and of the residue of the personal estate (the former unaccompanied by any trust) was not affected by the other provisions of the will, and GA took them beneficially.
Lord Cairns LC restated the Appellant’s argument: ‘George Arkle, the Respondent, does not appear to be a relative of the testator. The residue is given, in case George Arkle dies in the lifetime of the testator, to Benjamin Arkle. The same George Arkle is made executor, and the same Benjamin Arkle appointed executor in case George shall die in the testator’s lifetime- George, and, in the event of his death, Benjamin is appointed not merely executor, but trustee of the will. George and Benjamin have, each, a legacy of andpound;1000. After the residuary clause there is a power authorizing the testator’s trustee to invest his personal estate on such securities as he shall think best, and to continue any investments subsisting at the testator’s death, and to employ such accountants and receivers as shall be necessary. The trustee is appointed guardian of the children, and it is declared that the trustee shall have, and may exercise, all or any powers and authorities given to trustees by the Act commonly called Lord Cranworth’s Act. These are the provisions in the will relied upon by the Appellant.’
He continued: ‘It is to be observed that none of these provisions refers to or touches the real estate, and, as I have already said, no trust has to be answered out of the devise of the real estate. As regards the personal estate, there are legacies given amounting to about andpound;5000, and annuities which would require the appropriation of something like andpound;10,000 more; and one of these annuities was for the separate use of a married woman. There were, therefore, trusts connected with the personal estate as to which the executors would be trustees, and as to which powers for investment would, and powers for employing clerks and accountants might, be necessary; but all these trusts and purposes connected with the personal estate would have to be satisfied before the residue could be ascertained, and it is the residue and not the universitas of the personal estate which is given to George Arkle.
But there are several other circumstances connected with the will which in my opinion strongly support the natural construction of the words as a beneficial gift to George Arkle. The testator had a wife and two illegitimate children, who at the date of the will were of the ages of twenty and sixteen, and for all of them he made specific provision by his will. His sister, the Appellant, was at the date of the will his heiress and sole next of kin, and the person to whom undisposed-of realty, and undisposed-of personalty, other than that which a widow would take, would result. It is true that, at her death, other persons might have become interested; but testators do not generally look beyond the state of their families at the time. It is difficult to reconcile the gifts to the sister and to the wife, both of them apparently intended for maintenance, with a right, reserved to them, to a large undisposed-of residue. Again, if the wife was to marry, or mortgage her annuity, it was to fall into the residue; but of the residue, according to the Appellant’s hypothesis, she would take one-half. Again, the real estate is apparently subject to a charge in favour of the testator’s sister. But if she were to take the estate as heiress-at-law under a resulting trust, a charge in her favour would be unmeaning. Lastly, there is a devise, to the trustee of the will, of trust and mortgage estates. But this also would be more consistent with a construction which gave the testator’s own real estate to George Arkle beneficially, than with one which would make the devise of all real estate to be a devise in trust.
My Lords, I have thus gone through the more minute details of this will for the purpose of pointing out that they appear to me to support the case of the Respondent rather than that of the Appellant; and as I think it cannot be shewn that the testator has used the words in the general gift to George Arkle, which I commenced by reading, otherwise than in their natural sense, according to which, I repeat, they import a beneficial gift, the case of the Appellant appears to me to fail, and the appeal, as I submit, and move your Lordships, ought to be dismissed, with costs.’
Lord Hatherley said: ‘Is he or is he not, intending by what he has done to give his property, both the realty and the residuary personal estate, after payment of debts and legacies, beneficially to the same person whom he has appointed as his executor and trustee? Now when a testator has provided, as the testator has done, most remarkably in this will, for his wife, for his sister (his presumptive heir-at-law), for his illegitimate children, and for his great nephew in Ireland, to whom he has given a considerable legacy, namely andpound;2000; when he has provided for all of them, what is there to make it improbable, or anything out of the ordinary course of a testator’s will, that this bequest, which undoubtedly was an absolute devise for these persons successively, not qua executors or trustees but nominatim, should be with the intention of leaving (as he does) the whole of his real estate beneficially, and the residue of his personal estate beneficially, to them after the payment of his debts and legacies? . .
My Lords, I fail to see in this case that any trust whatever is attached to that portion which is given to George Arkle. As in the legacy of andpound;1000 he is simply called George Arkle, and not executor or trustee, so in the gift of the real estate he is simply called George Arkle. The real estate is devised to him, and no trust whatever is imposed upon him as to that; and as to the only remaining portion of the gift, it is not a gift of the whole personalty, but a gift of the residue of the personalty after the trusts of the will have been satisfied. It appears to me, therefore, that no part of the property comes to him as George Arkle by virtue of the gift until all the trusts of the will are exhausted, there being no trust at all as to the real estate, and as to the personal estate only the payment of debts, leaving the whole of the remainder to come to him in his personal capacity.
But, my Lords, the difficulty is extreme, as it seems to me, of holding (for it comes back to that point) that the testator, who has so carefully provided in his will for those who would be entitled to his personal estate, namely, his widow and his sole next of kin, a testator who has carefully provided against any imprudence on the part of that widow and his daughter with reference to the annuities which he has given to them, and which are to fall into the residue in case of their attempting to alienate them, should proceed afterwards, having provided an annuity only during that time for his presumptive heir-at-law, his sister Mary Williams, who was at that time of the age of sixty-nine, the testator himself being of the age of seventy-four, to give to George Arkle the whole of his real estate without saying one word about trust for her or for anybody else, without any apparent object in creating a trust, inasmuch as (as I have said) he has not mistrusted her. Is it likely that, having a perfect confidence in her, he should give the property to George Arkle (referring expressly to a debt of andpound;2500 owing to his presumptive heir-at-law, and to another debt of andpound;500 to her, which he states to be in his hands) subject to this trust, whereas she being heir-at-law and presumptive heiress of the whole estate, there was no need whatever of mentioning any charge that she had upon it, because she would be mistress of the whole property?’
Lord Chelmsford dissented, saying of the will that ‘an air of trust pervades it throughout’.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Rawstron and Another (Executrices of The Estate of Lucian Freud) v Freud ChD (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 2577 (Ch))
  The court considered the construction of a point in the deceased’s will. The clause said: ‘I GIVE all the residue of my estate (out of which shall be paid my funeral and testamentary expenses and my debts) and any property over which I have a . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20 March 2017
Ref: 535825

The post Williams v Arkle: HL 1875 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2014] EWHC 2860 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Morgan J
Ratio: Application for an anti-suit injunction made in the course of current proceedings in England which concern the estate of the late Wedad Tadros

Last Update: 20 March 2017
Ref: 536009

The post Tadros and Another v Barratt and Others: ChD 21 Aug 2014 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1976] 1 WLR 16, [1975] All ER 3 1037
Coram: Templeman J
Ratio: A court does not have power to rectify a will.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Marley v Rawlings and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 2, [2014] 2 WLR 213, [2014] WTLR 299, 16 ITELR 642, [2014] 1 All ER 807, [2014] WLR(D) 18, [2014] Fam Law 466, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0057, SC Summary, SC)
  A husband and wife had each executed the will which had been prepared for the other, owing to an oversight on the part of their solicitor; the question which arose was whether the will of the husband, who died after his wife, was valid. The parties . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20 March 2017
Ref: 536791

The post In re Reynette-James dec’d, Wightman v: ChD 1976 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.