header-logo header-logo

29 May 2010
Issue: 7419 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Time-bar ends brotherly squabble

A 13-year dispute between two brothers over a Devonshire farm left in a will has ended

A 13-year dispute between two brothers over a Devonshire farm left in a will has ended after the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal for being time-barred.

In Roberts v Gill & Co Solicitors and others [2010] UKSC 22, Mark Roberts and his brother John were beneficiaries of a will made by their grandmother, Alice Roberts. The will provided that if John paid all the inheritance tax due then a farm would pass to him, while another property would pass to his brother.

When the grandmother died, John paid some but not all of the inheritance tax, transferred ownership of the farm to himself, as administrator of the estate, and then sold it and used the proceeds to pay the remainder of the tax. Mark brought a legal claim against his brother and his brother’s solicitors, the two separate firms of Gill & Co and Whitehead Vizard.

The claim was framed in such a way as to allege that the duty of care was owed by the firms of solicitors to the appellant, Mark Roberts, personally. However, the correct legal position is that the duty of care is owed to the estate of the deceased. A beneficiary can only bring a claim where “special circumstances” exist.

The appellant applied to amend his claim to continue it on behalf of the estate. However, the justices ruled the amendment was time-barred under s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980.
 

Issue: 7419 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll