header-logo header-logo

Willing & able

19 April 2012
Issue: 7510 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Adopted sons win right to be considered next of kin in will

The High Court has applied the European Convention retrospectively to grant a £3.2m trust fund to two adopted sons.

In Re Erskine Trust, Gregg & Anor v Piggott & Ors [2012] EWHC 732 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 03 (Apr), Mr Justice Herbert relied on the principle of “fairness” to rule that the phrase “statutory next of kin” in a 1948 settlement could include the adopted children of the original beneficiary’s sister. Otherwise, the trust fund would have passed to cousins.

Adopted children had no property rights on inheritance at the time the trust fund was set up. The various Adoption Acts from 1950 onwards provide that “child” is to include an adopted child for the purposes of inheritance, but this does not affect earlier dispositions.

The adopted sons’ lawyers argued that it would be “anomalous to apply 1948 law to 2010 facts”, and that the court should interpret the wording of the settlement in light of Art 8 (right to family life) and Art 14 (prohibition on discrimination) of the European Convention. They highlighted the case of Pla v Andorra [2006] 42 EHRR 25, in which an adopted child was found to have a claim on a 1939 will.

Herbert J held the Convention could apply retrospectively where “that is achieved without unfairness. Similarly, I am prepared to accept in principle that the Convention becoming part of English law can have an effect on the construction and effect of an existing trust, if that can be achieved without unfairness”. Therefore, the trust fund vested in the adopted sons.

The adopted sons’ solicitor, Tony Millson, formerly of Veale Wasbrough Vizards and now head of private client law at Royds Solicitors, said it was unusual for the Convention to be applied retrospectively, and that the case could have an impact beyond wills and trusts law.

He added: “The principle of fairness played a large part in this—nobody was treated unfairly as a result of this decision.”

Issue: 7510 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll