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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll