header-logo header-logo

26 April 2012 / Henrietta Mason , Paola Fudakowska
Issue: 7511 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Willpower

Paola Fudakowska & Henrietta Mason provide a wills & probate update

In Burgess & Burgess v Hawes [2012] WTLR 423, Mrs Burgess (B) prepared a will on 23 September 1996 leaving her estate equally between her three children, Julia (J), Peter (P) and Libby (L). On 20 December 2006, after an argument between J and P, J took B to a solicitor to prepare a new will which would leave her estate to J and L alone. On 27 December 2006, B had a fall. On 12 January 2007, J took B to see the solicitor and B signed a will excluding P. In April 2007, B opened a joint account with J, into which she paid a significant portion of her savings and her pension. On 23 November 2007, B suffered a stroke. A CAT scan showed signs of previous damage to the brain, which were likely to have resulted from a previous stroke. B died on 30 May 2009.

L (despite taking more under the 2007 will than the 1996 will) and P

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

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