Kloosman v Aylen and Others: ChD 8 Mar 2013

The deceased had before his death sold his principle property and made substantial gifts to beneficiaries under his existing will. The parties disputed whether the gifts should be brought into the estate to set off against the gifts made in the will.
Held: On the facts as found the gift was not a portion as now defined, and did not adeem the interest in the will. The deceased had learned that he had bowel cancer and particularly would need care and support from this daughter. His intention was that the gifts would, in part, repay two daughters for what they had already spent taking on his care and in part would help finance the inevitable future costs of the deceased’s care and housing. The lifetime gifts therefore did not have the character of portions and the presumption against double portions did not arise. It was not inappropriate to make provision in the way that he had.

Vivien Rose (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)
[2013] EWHC 435 (Ch)
Bailii
Administration of Justice Act 1985
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedIn re Cameron deceased ChD 1999
The court was asked whether a gift was a ‘portion’ made in order to establish a child in life or make substantial provision for him.
Held: The presumption against double portions arises because it is assumed that a parent only intends to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.471748