The claimant said that the respondent had obtained a grant of letters of administration, and taken a share in the estate, by fraudulently destroying the deceased’s last will. He appealed against his claim being struck out as having no realistic prospect of success.
Held: There was no evidence to support the claim which was at best speculative. The appeal was denied.
Judges:
Thorpe LJ, Jacob J
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 893
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Atkinson v Morris CA 1897
The plaintiff was able to prove that the testator had said she had destroyed one copy of a will she had made in duplicate.
Held: Though that evidence would have had the effect of revocation, it was hearsay and inadmissible and her intentions . .
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.185522
