header-logo header-logo

A bitter dispute

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll