Wills and Probate - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

Re Vautier 2000 JLR 351
2000	Wills and Probate	Casemap 1 Citers
	(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."

Shepherd -v- Wheeler [2000] WTLR 1175
2000 ChD Lawrence Collins QC	Wills and Probate, Litigation Practice	1 Citers
	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

Bouette -v- Rose
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

Somers Dutton & Nicholas Mark Somers Dutton -v- Andrew Robert Piers Dutton & David Brown [2000] EWHC Ch 167
3 Feb 2000 ChD Honourable Mrs Justice Arden DBE	Wills and Probate, Land	Casemap 1 Cites
	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.
	Link[s] omitted

Shephard -v- Wheeler
15 Feb 2000 ChD	Wills and Probate, Insolvency
	An administrator had obtained a grant in the estate of the deceased without disclosing that, although he claimed to be a Chartered Accountant, he had lost his membership, that he was a bankrupt and that the deceased had been a creditor in his bankruptcy. The extent of this wilful failure to disclose was such as to justify revocation of the grant. In the circumstances full disclosure was required. The fact that the bankruptcy was discoverable as a public fact by a search did not obviate the need for disclosure.

X -v- Y, Z sub nom In re E (Enduring power of attorney) [2000] EWHC Ch 144; [2001] Ch 364; [2000] 1 FLR 882; [2000] 3 All ER 1004; [2000] 3 WLR 1974
18 Feb 2000 ChD Mrs Justice Arden DBE	Wills and Probate, Agency	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The application was an appeal against an order registering an enduring power of attorney. The appeal from Master Lush was by way of rehearing. The donor had executed two powers. The second was invalid, and the donees of the first power sought to register that. It was objected that the second power revoked the first. Held: The court could seek assistance from the law commission report which led to the Act. The Act was silent as to whether a second power revoked an earlier one by implication. Parliament had allowed that more than one power should exist. When a power is revoked notice must be given to the donee. There was no implicit revocation. The further suggestion that the two earlier donees were unsuitable because of their personal conflict with the third was negatived by the fact that the donor's choice impliedly recognised the conflict.
	Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 8(3) - The Incapacitated Principal (Law Commission No.122 (1983) Cmd 8977)
	Link[s] omitted

In Re the Estate of Ronald Ernest Chittock (Deceased); Chittock -v- Stevens and Others (2000) 1 WTLR 643
5 Apr 2000 ChD David Donaldson QC	Wills and Probate, Equity	Casemap 1 Cites
	A widow had thought that she was to receive the bulk of her husband's estate by survivorship, but discovered, only out of time and after the six months limit, that this was not the case. She applied for leave to apply out of time to rectify the will, saying that the revocation of the necessary provision was an error. Held: The application should be decided on similar principles to applications for an extension of time under the Inheritance etc Act. The failure to proceed arose from a fundamental mistake as to the value of the estate. The beneficiaries had operated under the same misapprehension, and had not therefore acted to their detriment because of the delay. Leave was given.
	Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 - Administration of Justice Act 1975 4

Gibbons and Another -v- Nelsons (A Firm) and Another [2000] PNLR 734
21 Apr 2000 ChD Blackburne J	Professional Negligence, Wills and Probate, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant was potentially interested in a fund as a beneficiary if her sister had exercised a power of appointment in her favour. She claimed that one firm of solicitors, who drafted a Will in 1986 for her sister, were negligent because that Will had the effect of exercising the power in favour of various charities, and that a second firm who drafted a Will in 1994, were similarly negligent in that the Will was in similar terms but with different charities nominated in not spotting and dealing with the point. Held: For a solicitor who drafts a will to be liable to a disappointed beneficiary who might have taken an interest under the will, where he was unaware of the particular individual, he must be shown at least to have been aware both of the benefit intended to be created, and of the class of beneficiaries to which it would apply. Once a solicitor accepted instructions, it was his responsibility to show that his responsibility did not extend to the aspect of the will under which the claim arises. That burden was discharged in this case.

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	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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.

In Re White (Dennis) Deceased; White -v- Minnis and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 149
25 May 2000 CA Chadwick LJ	Company, Wills and Probate	Casemap 1 Cites
	A family partnership had carried freehold property at its historic cost value in the books, rather than at a market value. After the death of one partner the share came to be valued. Held: Being a family partnership there was presumption that shares would be bought and sold at market value. The deceased partner could have been obliged to sign the accounts, in accordance with partnership practice, using that value, and so the historic cost was to be used not the market value.
	Partnership Act 1890 27 32 33 39
	Link[s] omitted

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.
	Link[s] omitted

Hart -v- Dabbs Unreported, 6 July 2000
6 Jul 2000 ChD Lloyd J	Wills and Probate	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.

D'Abo -v- Paget and Others (No 2)
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 [2000] EWCA Civ 282; [2000] EWCA Civ 283
22 Nov 2000 CA	Wills and Probate
	The infant child of a deceased parent who had murdered the child's grandparents, would not inherit on the intestacy. The grand-child was disinherited by his father's act. His right to inherit was to inherit the share his deceased parent would have taken, and that parent was disinherited. The words of the Act were not ambiguous, and this appeared to be the direct intention of Parliament. The general preference of issue over collateral beneficiaries was displaced by the words of the statute.
	Administration of Estates Act 1925
	Link[s] omitted

Fuller -v- Strum
20 Dec 2000 ChD Mr Jules Sher QC	Wills and Probate, Evidence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Mr Strum had come to England as a refugee from Nazi Germany. He had then left to live in Israel, but retained his property in London. A will was challenged on the basis that the signature had been forged. The two attesting witnesses asserted that the will had been properly executed, but the claimant brought an expert handwriting witness to say that the signature was a forgery. Held: The court was entitled to give precedence to the lay witnesses. A handwriting expert had a different status to a medical or other witness.