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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Re Vautier 2000 JLR 351
2000
Wills and Probate
(Royal Court of Jersey) The court considered a request for the rectification of a will: "To summarize, the common law of England recognized a power in the court to delete words from a will which were included by mistake but did not allow for power in the court to rectify by altering or adding to the wording of the will. The law of New Zealand has recognised a similar power to delete. It has not yet recognised a power to rectify by other alterations although in the case of McConagle [McConagle v. Starkey [1997] 3 NZLR 635], the court indicated that it was supportive of such an approach. In Canada, the courts have exercised a power to rectify a will by altering the wording but the initial decision could be said to be based on a misunderstanding of Guardian Trust."
1 Citers
Shepherd v Wheeler [2000] WTLR 1175
2000
ChD
Lawrence Collins QC
Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice
An application was made without notice for the appointment of an alleged creditor under section 116 as administrator of the deceased's intestate estate. Held: The court applied the standard principles of an enhanced duty of disclosure in without notice applications in probate actions.
Supreme Court Act 1981 116
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bouette v Rose Times, 01 February 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000
1 Feb 2000
CA
Wills and Probate, Damages
A mother who had given up work to stay at home and care for her daughter who had been awarded substantial damages for injury, was capable of being dependent upon her daughter when that daughter died. She was accordingly a person who could make a claim against the daughters estate under the Act. The daughter's resources had contributed substantially to the mothers living expenses, that had not been for valuable consideration, and she had, even if through the Court of Protection, assumed some responsibility for her mother's upkeep.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Mazurek v France 34406/97; [2000] ECHR 48; (2006) 42 EHRR 9
1 Feb 2000
ECHR
Human Rights, Children, Wills and Probate
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Dutton and Dutton v Dutton and Brown [2000] EWHC Ch 167
3 Feb 2000
ChD
Honourable Mrs Justice Arden DBE
Wills and Probate, Land
An option was granted by the will. Its validity was challenged because of difficulties in the method of reaching a valuation. It was occupied and it could not be agreed whether an assumption was to be made that the occupier would consent to the sale.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Shephard v Wheeler; ChD 15-Feb-2000 - Times, 15 February 2000
X v Y, Z sub nom In re E (Enduring power of attorney); ChD 18-Feb-2000 - [2000] EWHC Ch 144; [2001] Ch 364; [2000] 1 FLR 882; [2000] 3 All ER 1004; [2000] 3 WLR 1974
In Re the Estate of Ronald Ernest Chittock (Deceased); Chittock v Stevens and Others; ChD 5-Apr-2000 - Times, 05 April 2000; (2000) 1 WTLR 643
Gibbons and Another v Nelsons (A Firm) and Another; ChD 21-Apr-2000 - Times, 21 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] PNLR 734
Hannigan v Hannigan; CA 18-May-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 159
Corbett (As Administrator of the Estate of Miss N A Tresawna (Deceased)) v Bond Pearce (a Firm) Unreported, 25 May 2000; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 805
25 May 2000
ChD
Eady J
Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate
The testatrix had executed her will, but it was left undated pending preparation and execution of a second deed. The will failed, and her executors sought damages from her solicitors for negligence.
1 Citers
In Re White (Dennis) Deceased; White v Minnis and Another; CA 25-May-2000 - Gazette, 25 May 2000; Times, 10 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 149
Wilkes v Wilkes [2000] EWHC 1562 (Ch); [2006] WTLR 1097
8 Jun 2000
ChD
Wills and Probate
The claimant sought revocation of a grant of probate saying that the deceased had not had capacity and or had acted under the undue influence of one of the executors.
[ Bailii ]
Hart v Dabbs Unreported, 6 July 2000
6 Jul 2000
ChD
Lloyd J
Wills and Probate
An executor under the will was a legatee and the sole residuary legatee. He was involved in the preparation of the will and organised the process of its execution. There was no professional assistance or involvement of any kind in the will-making process, no evidence that the deceased prepared the will himself or gave instructions for its preparation, no evidence that the deceased read the will or had it read to him before or after it had been made or that he retained a copy or, apart from what can be inferred from the evidence that he told one legatee of what he intended to do by his Will (and that was partly inaccurate), that he knew about its terms. The propounder did not give evidence. The will was challenged. Held: Knowledge and approval could be inferred in all the circumstances, namely that the Will and other documents executed at the same time were duly executed, that there was reference during the signing ceremony to the fact that the purpose of the attendance of the witnesses was to witness the deceased's signature of his Will, and that the deceased covered up some of the documents. That evidence showed that the deceased was not deceived as to the nature of the document he was signing and that he had at least had the opportunity of seeing the documents before they were covered up. The provisions of the Will were neither complex nor difficult to grasp: "So long as he read the document he would have had no difficulty in taking in its provisions, even if someone else had prepared it." Apart from the gift of residue to the propounder there was not much in the will to provoke suspicion in itself as being different from what one might expect the deceased to do. The evidence showed the deceased to have been alert and not likely to allow himself to be persuaded to do what he did not want to do. On that evidence the Will was admitted to probate.
1 Citers
D'Abo v Paget and Others (No 2) Gazette, 05 October 2000; Times, 10 August 2000
10 Aug 2000
ChD
Trusts, Wills and Probate, Costs
Where a beneficiary having brought successful action against the trust fund, the rule in In re Buckton should still apply, but where the trustees could have brought the same action themselves, and had been ready and willing to do so, the beneficiary should not be awarded costs out of the trust fund. Under the new procedure, the court should take a more robust attitude to such claims. In effect the sole reason for the claimant's participation was to make a claim for costs if the trustees failed.
In Re DWS, Deceased, In Re EHS, Deceased, TWGS (A Minor) v G and Others; CA 22-Nov-2000 - Times, 22 November 2000; Gazette, 30 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 282; [2000] EWCA Civ 283
Lewis v Cotton [2000] NZCA 39; [2001] 2 NZLR 21; (2000) 20 FRNZ 86
18 Dec 2000
Richardson P, Blanchard J,Tipping J
Wills and Probate, Equity
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The Court considered the equitable doctrine of mutual wills. The doctrine recognised that the executors and trustees of a will may be required to hold affected assets upon a constructive trust in terms of a revoked will. Held: The imposition of a constructive trust based on mutual wills has two fundamental requirements:
(a) There was an underlying consultation and coordination between two testators which resulted in an agreement or an arrangement as to how they would make their respective wills (which were then made).2 I will refer to this as the requirement for "corresponding wills". Reference is sometimes made to "mirror wills" and, more ambiguously and confusingly, to "mutual wills".
(b) There must have been a contract or mutual understanding (intended to bind each testator to a future cause of action) that neither testator
1 Citers
[ NZLII ]
Fuller v Strum; ChD 20-Dec-2000 - Gazette, 08 February 2001; Times, 14 February 2001; [2001] WTLR 677
