header-logo header-logo

11 March 2010 / Michael Tringham
Issue: 7407 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Double family intestacy

Michael Tringham traces the expensive consequences of avoiding a bill

The Booth family’s probate troubles started with a £7,000 builder’s bill that farmer Edward Booth preferred not to pay. It has reached a Jarndyce-like finale—compounded by intestacy, allegations of forgery, secret gifts, false under-valuation, bankruptcy, even an illegitimacy, three separate trials—and an estimated six figures in legal costs, according to losing litigant Norman Booth, who told the Huddersfield Daily Examiner: “I shall have to pay [my siblings] out but there will be nothing left for nobody because the fees have to come out of the estate.”

Looking behind the legal reasons why Norman Booth lost his appeal against his siblings’ claim based on their mother’s intestacy shows how, from one small event —itself long since settled—unexpected consequences may flow.

Almost 40 years ago Edward Booth bought Silver Ings Farm in Skelmanthorpe, West Yorkshire, of which he was the tenant, from the Saville Estate. By the 1980s he had entered into a farming partnership with his son Norman. Around 1982 he engaged a local builder

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll