Tricky probate problems and how to solve them Part 1: A caveat has been entered but we need to administer the estate – what do we do?

This is the first in a series of short posts looking at tricky problems that can arise in probate disputes. In this post, I will take a look at a common problem – what to do where a caveat has been lodged in order to prevent a grant of probate being taken, but there is […]

Reasonable financial provision for cohabitants: Thompson v Ragget & Ors [2018] EWHC 688 (Ch)

HHJ Jarman QC sitting in the High Court has given judgment on a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“IPFDA”) on a claim brought by the deceased’s cohabitee: Thompson v Ragget & Ors [2018] EWHC 688 (Ch) The decision is of particular interest as HHJ Jarman considered […]

Constructive trusts of the family home in Culliford v Thorpe [2018] EWHC 426 (Ch)

HHJ Paul Matthews is knocking out the judgments at the moment and we have another recent decision from him, sitting as a High Court Judge in the Bristol District Registry, dealing with a claim to establish a constructive trust, or alternatively proprietary estoppel, this time in a domestic context. HHJ Matthews used to sit as […]

Dust up in the Dairy: proprietary estoppel in Habberfield v Habberfield

We have another notable proprietary estoppel case, concerning the ubiquitous farm, but in this instance featuring an actual fight in the milking parlour: the bucolically named Habberfield v Habberfield [2018] EWHC 317 (Ch).The decision of Birss J is of particular interest for his approach to the issue of the relief to be granted in satisfying the equity […]

Contentious probate costs – departing from “loser pays” and form matters for Part 36 offers: James v James [2018] EWHC 242 (Ch)

HHJ Matthews costs ruling following the trial of the proprietary estoppel and probate claim in James v James & Ors [2018] EWHC 242 (Ch) (see my post on the substantive issues here) has been published and provides a helpful reminder of the contentious probate costs rules and the consequences of failing to follow the prescribed […]

Posthumously proving paternity: can the courts direct DNA testing after death?

Photo credit: Composite – Reuters/Corbis/Getty The subject of posthumous DNA testing received international attention last year in the case of Salvador Dalí and we have had two decisions this month on the issue from the courts of England and Wales: Anderson v Spencer [2018] EWCA Civ 100, in which the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s […]

Proprietary estoppel and testamentary capacity in James v James [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch)

HHJ Paul Matthews, sitting as a High Court Judge, has recently revisited the ingredients of proprietary estoppel and the requirements for establishing testamentary capacity in James v James [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch). The case has been widely reported in the press, including the Daily Mail, whose take on the case was put as follows: “Farmer’s son who […]

Presumed resulting trusts of land: NCA v Dong & Ors [2017] EWHC 3116

This is, I must concede, one for the property law geeks (such as myself) who find excitement in the debate over whether or not s.60(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925 has swept away the presumption of a resulting trust upon the gratuitous transfer of land. Chief Master Marsh has weighed into the fray […]

Ilott’s legacy: Two Recent Cases on Reasonable Provision Post Ilott

On the heels of the Supreme Court judgment in Ilott v Mitson, we have two recent cases of interest concerning claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 that follow and apply the dicta of the Supreme Court in Ilott: Ball v Ball [2017] EWHC 1750 (Ch), a decision of Judge Paul Matthews sitting […]

wig and scroll

Use it, or Lose it: Roberts v Fresco [2017] EWHC 283 (Ch)

The High Court in Roberts v Fresco [2017] EWHC 283 (Ch) has confirmed that claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 are purely personal and non-inheritable and thus cannot be pursued by a claimant’s personal representatives, following the death of the claimant. That this was so appeared to be fairly well settled based […]