header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 October 2016 / Clare Kelly
Issue: 7720 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Will I, won’t I?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Clare Kelly provides a round-up of recent contentious probate case law
  • Ames v Jones provides a reminder that claims by adult children under the Inheritance Act will not be successful where they depend on a lifestyle choice.
  • Lloyd v Jones confirms that dementia alone (even where this is accompanied by bizarre delusions) will not mean a will is invalid on the grounds of capacity.
  • Guney v Kingsley Napley highlights the emotional toll of contentious probate disputes.

The hopes of adult children in claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), given a boost by Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797, [2016] 1 All ER 932, have been brought back down to earth by the decision in Ames v Jones & Ors [2016] EW Misc B67 (CC), where provision was denied because the claimant’s financial circumstances were found to be a lifestyle choice.

The case concerned an I(PFD)A 1975 claim by an adult child (Danielle) for provision from her late father’s estate. Her parents divorced when

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll