header-logo header-logo

Double family intestacy

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll