header-logo header-logo

17 February 2017
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Will

Re Hayward (deceased) Kunicki and another v Hayward [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 126 (Dec)

The Chancery Division held that, in a dispute concerning two wills (the 2008 will and the 2013 will), the 2013 will was valid. It held that the deceased had had capacity when he had signed the 2013 will and that he had known and had approved its contents. The court dismissed the defendant’s amended counterclaim for specific performance of an alleged contract, whereby the second claimant, his sister, had allegedly contracted to share the deceased’s estate equally with him. It held that, on the facts, the alleged agreement was not an enforceable contract.

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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
The High Court has upheld the Metropolitan Police’s live facial recognition policy, rejecting claims that its deployment unlawfully interferes with privacy and protest rights
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
back-to-top-scroll