An interesting Wills and probate case is developing involving several of the UK’s leading animal charities -- Friends Of The Animals, Dogs Trust, World Animal Protection, and Heart Research UK.
The case centres on the disputed estate of a woman called Tracey Leaning who died in 2015 at the age of 54. The plank concerns the validity of Ms Leaning's Will, with the animal charities claiming that her second Will, made shortly before her death, is invalid because her signature was written on a second piece of paper that was not stapled to the first (although both sheets of paper which constituted the rewritten Will were in the same sealed envelope and the signing was witnessed by two neighbours).
Read more: When is a Will not valid – when the beneficiaries desire it not to be?
An important probate case this summer, Keeling v Keeling, demonstrated the unwillingness of the courts to believe in so-called “deathbed gifts” without the credibility provided by the presence of a bona fide Will or, failing that perhaps, reliable and impartial witnesses.
The case concerned the alleged deathbed gift of a 91-year-old woman who, according to her 86-year-old widower brother, gifted him her £900,000 house in Westhampnett near Chichester during her final days.
In throwing out the widower’s claim, Judge Charles Hollander QC, reprimanded him for what he said amounted to a "shameless sense of entitlement" which had led him to "ride roughshod" over the interests and rights of other family members, including a third sibling who is 87-years-old and suffers from dementia and physical disability.
Read more: Keeling v Keeling and the court's view on unsubstantiated "deathbed gifts"
A woman has been granted permission to appeal the ruling of a case that the treasurer of Resolution has called "the most significant divorce case of the century so far". Here we take a look at the development of Owens v Owens, before it reaches the Supreme Court.
The case of Green v Adams [2017] EWFC 24 serves as a useful illustration of the application of family law in regard to capital provision for children of parents who have separated and are no longer living together.
The case was begun on 5 April 2013 when the mother of a 16-year old boy made plain her desire to seek an additional capital sum to pay for a replacement car, travel expenses for her child, and miscellaneous capital expenses, including a new laptop for the child, and for periodical payments. This claim was made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.
