header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 March 2008 / Paola Fudakowska , Adam Cloherty , Paula Hewitt
Issue: 7266 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Wills and probate

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

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