header-logo header-logo

27 April 2007 / Tracy Harris
Issue: 7270 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

A bitter dispute

The Rolling Stones banker and a question of trust. Tracy Harris reports

Post-death disputes over the provisions of wills have become an increasingly regular feature of the law reports and the press. A combination of sharp increases in real property values and a wider readiness to seek legal redress for perceived inheritance injustices has contributed to a heightened awareness of some long-available remedies. Often the legal and emotional issues are complex, as in Cox-Johnson v Cox-Johnson and Others, concerning the estate of Richard Cox-Johnson, dubbed the Rolling Stones’ banker by the press, where personal e-mails and a secret video recording proved both newsworthy and of central legal significance.

In principle, testators can leave their assets to whomever they wish, but the provisions of their will can be challenged after their death.

CHALLENGING WILLS

If the testator has testamentary capacity, their knowledge and approval of the will is usually assumed from the fact that the testator has signed and had it attested in proper form. However, if the court’s suspicion is aroused the burden of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll