A provision in a will which purported to make the decision of the trustees final on any matter in dispute between them and the beneficiaries was a provision calculated to oust the jurisdiction of the court and so was void as being contrary to public policy, and: ‘anything which attempts to deprive the parties of their right to bring an action is unlawful as an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the court’.
 Ch 271
Cited – Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd ChD 12-Jun-2007
The parties had agreed in a contract for the sale and purchase of land to exclude the application of section 49(2). The buyer had failed to comply with a notice to complete.
Held: The parties cannot contract out of section 49(2). The . .
Cited – Creasey and Another v Sole and Others ChD 24-May-2013
The parties, brothers and sisters, disputed ownership of lands to be inherited from the estates of their parents, and whether parts of the farm purchased in several lots under different ownerships descended as part of the farm. . .
Cited – Re Tuck’s Settlement Trusts CA 1-Nov-1977
By his will, Sir Adolph Tuck sought to ensure that his successors should be Jewish, and stated that the arbitrators of this must be the Chief Rabbi of his community. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.267650