header-logo header-logo

30 March 2008 / Paola Fudakowska , Adam Cloherty , Paula Hewitt
Issue: 7266 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Wills and probate

Service out of jurisdiction, Making wills for family members, Lifetime gifts

CONSTRUCTION

Thomas v Kent [2006] EWCA Civ 1485, [2006] All ER (D) 57 (May)

John Jones died in 1944 leaving a will which provided for an ultimate trust, to take effect after successive life interests, “unto my brothers (excluding and excepting my brother David Jones) and sisters in equal shares, the shares of any deceased brother or sister to be taken by his or her children in equal shares”.

The deceased was one of 11 children. When the will was executed the excluded brother and three sisters were known to be alive. In 1992 the estate became subject to the ultimate trust. The trustees applied to the court to establish how the fund should be distributed. The trustees’ view was that descendants of all the brothers and sisters (excluding David Jones) should benefit.

Pauline Kent, a partner in a firm of solicitors, was joined as a defendant to the proceedings to represent those who would benefit if ‘brothers and

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll