Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Wills and Probate - From: 1997 To: 1997

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Watson, Rudolph, Hosp v Perotti, Abbate; CA 17-Jan-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 804
 
Jameson and Wyatt (Executors of the Estate of David Allen Jameson) v Central Electricity Generating Board and Babcock Energy Limited Times, 25 February 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1008
13 Feb 1997
CA

Personal Injury, Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice
Executors may sue for a dependency claim despite a full and final settlement having been made by the deceased.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Heather Elizabeth Jones Deceased Robert Jones v Midland Bank Trust Company Limited; Alan Joseph Perry; Michael John Amplett and Steven James Amplett Times, 29 April 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1427
17 Apr 1997
CA
Lord Justice Nourse Lord Justice Henry Sir Patrick Russell
Wills and Probate
The will gave the residue of the estate to the testatrix's son, but if he predeceased her to her nephews. The son was convicted of her murder. The court had to decide whether the gift fell into residue, when the son requested the court to disapply the forfeiture rule. Held: Disentitlement under a will because of murder leaves the will to be read as it had been worded; no re-interpretation should be undertaken. A declaration was made in favour of an intestacy.
Forfeiture Act 1982
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Higginbotham v Blenkhorn, and Blenkhorn (Executors of the Estate of Eric Blenkhorn Deceased) [1997] EWCA Civ 1425
17 Apr 1997
CA

Wills and Probate

[ Bailii ]

 
 Goodchild and Another v Goodchild; CA 2-May-1997 - Times, 12 May 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1611; [1997] 3 All ER 63; [1997] 1 WLR 1216
 
Roach v National Westminster Bank Plc [1997] EWCA Civ 1659
9 May 1997
CA

Wills and Probate
Application for leave to appeal refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hocking and Hocking v Hocking [1997] EWCA Civ 1847
12 Jun 1997
CA

Wills and Probate, Family

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Hobley, Deceased Times, 16 June 1997
16 Jun 1997
ChD

Wills and Probate
Where partners make mutual wills, but the first of them dies after making an alteration to his will, the survivor is freed from that mutuality obligation.

 
Joan Beryl Webb Paul Francis Webb (Personal Representatives of the Late George Lawrence Webb) v Lawrence Desmond Webb [1997] EWCA Civ 2067
9 Jul 1997
CA

Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant; CA 23-Jul-1997 - Gazette, 24 September 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2167; [1997] 4 All ER 289; [1998] Ch 412; [1997] 3 WLR 1261; [1998] 1 FLR 157; [1998] Fam Law 139; [1997] 3 FCR 669
 
William Corbett v Bond Pearce (a Firm) [1997] EWCA Civ 531
8 Aug 1997
CA

Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate, Legal Professions
The solicitors had added a date to a will executed by the client, as a result of this the will had been open to challenge. Objection was then made to the will on the ground of capacity. An action found negligence, but costs were paid from the estate of over £150,000.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Yorke Deceased Gazette, 03 September 1997; [1997] 4 All ER 907
3 Sep 1997
ChD
Lindsay J
Wills and Probate
The plaintiffs were executors of the deceased, a "name" at Lloyd's from 1983 until his death in 1991. The estate was reinsured with Equitas for every possible Lloyd's risk to which it would or might otherwise be liable. Having settled the debts and liabilities of the deceased, other than unascertained potential future liabilities arising from his position as a Lloyd's name, the plaintiffs wished to complete their administration by distributing the residue. The plaintiffs wished to be sure, however, that distribution would not involve them in personal liability should creditors in respect of the deceased's position as a Lloyd's name emerge. Held: Personal representatives of Lloyd's names protected by Equitas were not under a general duty to distribute to beneficiaries without retention or further security and without first obtaining the sanction of the court. Nevertheless, balancing the injustice of beneficiaries being kept out of benefit on account of unascertained liabilities which might never come to anything against the risk of unknown contingent creditors who had paid for cover finding their matured debts unmet, the plaintiffs would be permitted to distribute to the beneficiaries without retention or further security beyond that provided by Equitas. On the evidence there was no reason to think that Equitas was likely to fail, in whole or in part. The Court gave complete protection to an executor distributing the estate despite a potential claim; no further retention for et hclaim was to be allowed.
Lindsay J said: 'Although in considering the making of an order giving protection to executors the court would not look to create for a creditor some security which he had not stipulated for by his contract and would not act upon an attempt by a creditor in such a behalf (King v Malcott (1852) 9 Hare 692, 68 ER 691), the court would none the less, in making such orders, consider whether any and if so what indirect protection should be extended to creditors and including contingent creditors: Fletcher v Stevenson and Dean v Allen; see Re Nixon, Gray v Bell [1904] l Ch 638 at 694.
As for the forms of protection to be given to executors, they seem principally or exclusively to have consisted on the one hand of a retention by the executors out of the estate or, alternatively, the provision of an indemnity from the beneficiaries by whom (usually) a distribution without retention was sought.' and
'If security was to be provided by a beneficiary to an executor so as to indemnify the executors in a secured way and, alternatively, where there was a retention by the executor in lieu of sufficient security from the beneficiary, then the question of the amount of the security or of the retention would be adjourned to be fixed by the master: Simmons v Bollard, Dobson v Carpenter, Re Bennett and Re Owers. That reference to the master was not, it seems, by reason of any rule or principle requiring it but simply because the material for an assessment had not been put before the judge: see e. g. Re Owers.
The principle on which the master would act in fixing the amount or nature of the security or retention is not disclosed in the cases but it is nowhere suggested that the calculation had to be such that the security would necessarily and in all possible events suffice to meet in full whatever the executor might have to pay the creditors.' and
'Even though a contingent creditor had no strict right at law or in equity to insist upon a retention or upon security, the better view, in my judgment, is that the court would have in mind, in fixing a retention or security, that it was proper, as noted above, that creditors should to some extent be protected.' and
'The courts looked in general at the 'reasonable probability' of there being future demands against the estate: Dean v Allen. A practical view would be taken.'
Lindsay J continued: 'the court could take a practical view, even against executors who asked for better protection, that no retention or security beyond the personal liability of the beneficiaries was needed and could decree accordingly, thus conferring the immunity which the executors had sought: see Waller v Barrett and March v Russell.' and he concluded 'First, a distribution made pursuant to a decree of the court affords a complete protection for the executor and the executor need not and indeed should not look, for example to a retention, for any protection beyond that. Secondly, it has long been the practice of the court to enable personal representatives to set apart 'a reasonable sum to cover any liability which might in any reasonable probability arise by reason of a future breach' of covenants in a lease held by the deceased: Kindersley V-C in Dodson v Carpenter. These observations can comfortably coexist if the case was that where an executor during his administration knew of no likelihood of any contingent debt maturing he could, by having an account taken in court of all known liabilities, obtain a decree which permitted him to distribute to legatees without making any retention but which none the less gave him complete freedom from a devastavit (save in exceptional circumstances such, for example, as fraud, misrepresentation or concealment). Where that was done a creditor with a late maturing contingent debt would be able to recover, if at all, only against the legatees.
Conversely, if, during an administration some real possibility of some contingent debt maturing came to the executor's notice, the executor could, either of his own volition or under the guidance of the court, retain a sum out of the estate against that risk or seek security direct from the prospective recipient beneficiary. If there was a retention and if his retention was pursuant to a direction of the court, or if the security from the beneficiary was given under the direction of the court, then, again, he would be protected against devastavit once the fund retained or the security so given was exhausted in application towards a risk against which it had been reserved. But if the executor failed to obtain the directions of the court in that he distributed with neither a retention, nor a security from a beneficiary, sanctioned by the court nor had obtained the sanction of the court upon the taking of an account and a decree then, in any such case, he remained at risk of personal liability.'
1 Citers


 
Diana Mary Duggan v Malcolm Frank Barker [1997] EWCA Civ 2357
22 Sep 1997
CA

Wills and Probate

[ Bailii ]
 
Gowmans Solicitors v Owen Lightowler [1997] EWCA Civ 2430
7 Oct 1997
CA

Wills and Probate
The applicant's mother had died leaving him a life interest under her will. He had moved into property which had been hers, but without permission. In 1986 he had been ordered to leave. The judge had asked the solicitors administering the estate not to evict the applicant whilst his wife was nearby in a mental hospital. Now, some eleven years later he sought to appeal the order. Held: The order had been correctly made, and the delay very considerable. The appeal failed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Tibbs and Tibbs v Beresford-Webb, John David Dick and others [1997] EWCA Civ 3040
18 Dec 1997
CA

Wills and Probate

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.