References: [1897] 2 Ch 574
Coram: Stirling J
Ratio:Stirling J said: ‘Prima facie the duty of making a provision for a child falls on the father, but may fall on or be assumed by some other person. I do not say that in no case and under no circumstances can the duty fall on or be assumed by the mother of the child; but it appears to me that the burden of proving such to be the case lies on those who assert the fact so to be.’
This case cites:
- Appealed to – Re Ashton CA ([1898] 1 Ch 142)
(Reversed) . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Re Ashton CA ([1898] 1 Ch 142)
(Reversed) . . - Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips -v- Donald Cameron and Others ChD (Gazette 21-Apr-99, Times 02-Apr-99, Gazette 28-Apr-99)
One of the testatrix’s children was thought to be profligate, and had failed to maintain his own son. Acting under an enduring power of attorney, the testatrix’s attorneys made a substantial gift in establishing an educational trust for that son’s . . - Cited – Re Ware ([1926] KIN 163)
No presumption as to any double portion arose in the case of dispositions made in favour of a child by a mother unless she had placed herself in loco parentis to them. In this case there was no evidence of such. . . - Cited – In Re Eardley ([1920] 1 Ch 397)
The court considered whether a gift might adeem a gift in a will by ‘by a father or a person in loco parentis’ but ‘the matter must be regarded from a wider point of view’. The rule against double portions is, in effect, no more than one way of . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 09-Jun-16
Ref: 194477