Stirling J said: ‘Prima facie the duty of making a provision for a child falls on the father, but may fall on or be assumed by some other person. I do not say that in no case and under no circumstances can the duty fall on or be assumed by the mother of the child; but it appears to me that the burden of proving such to be the case lies on those who assert the fact so to be.’
References: [1897] 2 Ch 574
Judges: Stirling J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Appealed to – Re Ashton CA 1898
(Reversed) . .
([1898] 1 Ch 142)
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Re Ashton CA 1898
(Reversed) . .
([1898] 1 Ch 142) - Cited – In Re the Estate of Marjorie Langdon Cameron (Deceased); Peter David Phillips v Donald Cameron and Others ChD 24-Mar-1999
One of the testatrix’s children was thought to be profligate, and had failed to maintain his own son. Acting under an enduring power of attorney, the testatrix’s attorneys made a substantial gift in establishing an educational trust for that son’s . .
(Gazette 21-Apr-99, Times 02-Apr-99, Gazette 28-Apr-99) - Cited – Re Ware 1926
No presumption as to any double portion arose in the case of dispositions made in favour of a child by a mother unless she had placed herself in loco parentis to them. In this case there was no evidence of such. . .
([1926] KIN 163) - Cited – In Re Eardley 1920
The court considered whether a gift might adeem a gift in a will by ‘by a father or a person in loco parentis’ but ‘the matter must be regarded from a wider point of view’. The rule against double portions is, in effect, no more than one way of . .
([1920] 1 Ch 397)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194477
