hmt_dovetonChd10
References: [2008] EWHC 2812 (Ch), [2009] BPIR 352
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir Mark Herbert QC
Ratio: The claimant requested the revocation of a grant of probate to the defendant. They had suspicions about the will propounded and lodged a caveat which was warned off and the grant completed. In breach of court orders, the defendant had transferred substantial estate assets abroad. The defendant said that the burden of proving that the will was a fraud was higher than the balance of probabilities.
Held: Earlier authorities on the applicable standard of proof needed to be read in the light of more recent authority (particularly in re Doherty). Accordingly ‘the civil burden of proof applies to this case, and the seriousness of the allegations made against Mr Doveton and the consequences of a possible finding against him do not alter that. They affect my task in a different way, namely that they are extremely important factors which I must take fully into account in deciding, on the balance of probabilities, whether the Treasury Solicitor has made out its case.’
The executor’s case faced many real difficulties, and the court concluded that the will could not stand. The court made orders under the 1986 Act to set aside the transactions found by the judge to have been made in an attempt to avoid creditors.
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 423(1)
This case cites:
- Cited – Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd CA ([1957] 1 QB 247, [1956] 3 All ER 970)
The court was asked what was the standard of proof required to establish the tort of misrepresentation, and it contrasted the different standards of proof applicable in civil and criminal cases.
Held: The standard was the balance of . . - Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL (Independent 17-Jan-96, [1996] AC 563, [1996] 1 FLR 80, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 16, [1996] Fam Law 74, [1996] 1 FCR 509, [1996] 2 WLR 8, [1996] 1 All ER 1)
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . . - Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 2 FLR 141, HL, [2009] 1 AC 11, [2008] 3 WLR 1, [2008] Fam Law 837, [2008] 2 FCR 339, [2008] Fam Law 619, [2008] 4 All ER 1)
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . . - Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman HL (House of Lords, Times 15-Oct-01, Bailii, Gazette 01-Nov-01, [2001] UKHL 47, [2003] 1 AC 153, 11 BHRC 413, [2002] ACD 6, [2001] 3 WLR 877, [2002] Imm AR 98, [2002] INLR 92, [2002] 1 All ER 122)
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 26 October 2017
Ref: 377224
The post The Solicitor for the Affairs of HM Treasury v Doveton and Another: ChD 13 Nov 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.