Category: News Stories

You Are Duty-Bound Reasonably to Provide for Your Dependants in Your Will

Posted on by Wellers

Making reasonable provision in your will for those who depend upon you financially is a duty, not a choice. A judge made that point in coming to the aid of two sisters who were left in acute need when their father bequeathed them nothing.

In a will made four months before he died, their father left the entirety of his estate – consisting of his home, which was worth £355,000 – to their brother, who lived in the property. The sisters launched proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Ruling on the matter, the judge noted that both sisters were in their 60s and in poor health. Their father had, from time to time, helped them out with gifts of money and their disinheritance had left their finances in a parlous state. Their brother, aged in his 70s, had almost entirely failed to engage in the proceedings.

The judge found that the father, whilst anxious to ensure that his son continued to have a roof over his head, had also stated his intention to make provision for his other children. In failing to reflect that intention in his will, he had failed to make reasonable provision for the sisters. In order to meet their reasonable needs, the judge ruled that one sister should have £70,000 from the estate and the other £90,000.

Adopted Pensioner’s Quest to Find Her Birth Parents Finally Bears Legal Fruit

Posted on by Wellers

Many adopted people feel driven to embark on long and demanding quests to find their birth parents. In one case, decades of painstaking research paid off when a woman in her late 70s was granted a court order that completed her sense of identity.

The woman was placed with adoptive parents within days of her birth in 1945. The couple told her at an early age that she was adopted and that her birth parents were each married to someone else, making it impossible for her to remain with them. The woman grew to adulthood, left home, married and had children and grandchildren of her own.

She was in middle age when she began her hunt for her birth parents. She had little success in the early days, but the advent of the internet changed all that. With her son’s help, she found out her mother’s name and that she had migrated to Australia soon after the Second World War. She had since engaged positively with members of her mother’s large family and had travelled to Australia to meet them.

Identifying her birth father, who, together with her birth mother and adoptive parents, was long-since deceased, posed a more difficult challenge. Via a genealogical website, she obtained a DNA match with a third cousin who put her in touch with other members of the family. The niece and nephew of the man she believed to be her birth father consented to DNA testing, which confirmed a 98.32 per cent probability that they were blood related.

In granting the woman a declaration of parentage, the High Court found that the man was, on the balance of probabilities, her birth father. For her own sake and that of her children and grandchildren, it was important to her to establish a sense of familial identity. To her great joy, she had formed a bond with members of her birth father’s family with whom she was in regular contact. The declaration opened the way for her to seek the man’s formal recognition as her father on her birth certificate.

You Don’t Have to Put Up With Online Harassment

Posted on by Wellers

In an era of easy, internet-based mass communication, reputations can, without a shred of justification, be destroyed at the click of a button. As a High Court case showed, however, victims of such behaviour can, with expert legal assistance, achieve both vindication and just compensation.

The case concerned the founder of a spiritual group who was the target of videos posted online and emails sent to recipients who possibly numbered in the thousands. They contained allegations of immoral and criminal conduct against him that were of the utmost gravity.

The publications caused great distress to both the founder and his family. Despite his extensive efforts to have the videos removed from the internet, they continued to surface from time to time, resulting in an exodus of members from his organisation. Some of the videos had received tens of thousands of views and he found himself constantly having to explain that the allegations were false.

He issued proceedings against two men who were said to be responsible for the publications, alleging defamation, harassment, breach of data protection and misuse of private information. Their defences to the claim were later struck out by a judge due to their failure to comply with court orders and judgment was entered against them.

One of them agreed to settle the claim against him by paying a global sum of more than £130,000 in damages and costs. He publicly apologised to the founder and accepted that the allegations were untrue, were seriously harmful and included some intrusive speculation into the founder’s private life. The proceedings continued against the other man, however.

In ordering the other man to pay £35,000 in damages, plus legal costs, the Court found that it was a case of serious online harassment. The award reflected the absence of an apology and was designed to vindicate the founder’s reputation. An injunction was issued which, amongst other things, forbade him from making any further publications concerning the founder.

Stamp Duty Land Tax – When is a Property Unsuitable for Use as a Dwelling?

Posted on by Wellers

A newly purchased house may require a great deal of renovation and repair work to render it habitable – but does that mean it is unsuitable for use as a dwelling for the purposes of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT)? A tribunal considered that issue in a guideline case.

A couple paid over £1.7 million for a detached house that had in the past been tenanted but which had been empty for some months prior to its acquisition. Amidst signs of vandalism, the property was strewn with rubbish and the kitchen gave off an unbearable smell. The boiler was hanging off the wall, the basement was flooded by leaking water pipes, utilities could not safely be used and the property’s electrical wiring was in a life-threatening condition.

The couple paid £177,000 in SDLT on purchasing the property, but subsequently asserted that they were entitled to a rebate of almost £100,000 on the basis that it was not suitable for use as a dwelling on the date of acquisition. The matter came before the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) after HM Revenue and Customs took a contrary view.

Ruling on the matter, the FTT accepted that the state of the property was not such that a reasonable buyer might be expected to move in straight away. Amongst other things, the property required complete rewiring and installation of a new boiler and pipework. Broken windows and doors required repair to make the property secure and skip loads of rubbish had to be removed.

In rejecting the couple’s challenge, however, the FTT noted that suitability for use as a dwelling house is not equated with immediate readiness for occupation. In the context of SDLT, only very serious, fundamental problems – such as radioactivity or a risk of imminent structural collapse – are sufficient to render a property unsuitable for such use.

Whilst accepting that it would have been dangerous for the couple to move into the property immediately, the FTT noted that the relevant defects were curable. They were not fundamental and did not come anywhere near the threshold at which a reduced rate of SDLT is payable.

Ex-Couple Spend an ‘Absurd’ £5 Million Plus Litigating About Their Child

Posted on by Wellers

Disputes between separated couples as to how their children should be provided for can, in the absence of compromise, sadly reach epic proportions. That was certainly so in one extraordinary case in which a couple spent over £5 million between them litigating over the future of their son.

The couple, who were not formally married, lived a remarkably lavish lifestyle during their long relationship. They viewed the birth of their longed-for child, following IVF treatment, as a miracle. Their separation, however, raised the curtain on relentless litigation concerning the boy. Their expenditure on legal costs was estimated to amount to more than £60,000 for each month of his young life.

The dispute entered a new chapter when the mother sought a carer’s allowance and financial provision for the child from the immensely wealthy father. Ruling on the matter, the High Court found that the litigation arose almost entirely from the father’s relentless, unsympathetic and oppressive conduct. Whilst clearly having exceptional business acumen, he had shown almost no emotional intelligence.

The Court noted that the child was apparently thriving. However, if he were to learn in later life that his parents had – at such completely absurd cost – spent their entire time arguing about him, he would be appalled. Such a discovery might prompt him to simply walk away from both of them when he was old enough to do so.

The father was, amongst other things, directed to provide for his child by paying the mother £125,000 a year and to arrange the purchase of a property for her and their son to live in at a price of up to £4 million. Urging the former couple to draw a line under the litigation and reach some sort of rapprochement, the Court emphasised that their child’s best hope of a secure future lay in having two loving parents.

High Court Ruling Underlines the Pitfalls of Making ‘Inflexible’ Mutual Wills

Posted on by Wellers

It is legally possible for couples to make mutual wills by which each binds the other not to alter their bequests at any point in the future, save by mutual agreement. As a High Court ruling showed, however, the inherent inflexibility of such arrangements is one good reason why lawyers usually advise against them.

A married couple made mutual wills by which they each bequeathed their estates to the other. The wills provided that, on the death of the second spouse, the entirety of his or her estate would pass to their third-eldest child. Following the husband’s death, however, the wife made a fresh will by which she appointed their sixth-eldest child as her sole beneficiary.

The effect of the mutual wills, if valid, was that, in the absence of their agreement to the contrary, each spouse bound the other to bequeath his or her estate to the third child. When the death of the husband rendered any such agreement impossible, the obligation on the wife to do so became irrevocable.

The sixth child sought a formal declaration that his mother’s final will was valid. In resisting his claim, however, the third child asserted that the document was of no effect in that it conflicted with the terms of the earlier mutual wills.

Ruling on the matter, the Court noted that it is notorious to lawyers practising in the field that a decision to make mutual wills needs to be considered with the greatest care. The inflexibility of such arrangements, which take no account of any future changes in circumstances, usually renders them inappropriate.

The couple understood the effect of their agreement to enter into mutual wills. It was, however, certainly a transaction that called for an explanation. In setting aside the agreement, the Court was not satisfied that they had entered into it free from the third child’s undue influence. The ruling meant that the mother’s final will took full effect and that the sixth child, not the third, was the beneficiary of her estate.

Setting Up Business in a Garden Outhouse? Make Sure You Read This First

Posted on by Wellers

One of the social effects of the COVID-19 pandemic was the creation of a fashion for householders to operate businesses from outhouses in their gardens. However, an important tribunal ruling underlined the legal hazards of such a course.

In response to the pandemic, a couple began running a beauty therapy business in a wooden cabin in their back garden. They said that they only subsequently became aware that planning permission was required to allow the cabin’s commercial use. Their retrospective application for planning permission was successful.

That, however, was not the end of the matter: their property’s title deeds included a restrictive covenant which forbade its use for any trade, business or profession or for any purpose other than that of a single private dwelling. Faced with that difficulty, the couple applied to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for the covenant to be modified so that they could continue to run their business.

The woman asserted that the covenant took away her right to earn a living. She said that she was constrained by the pandemic to relocate the business to the cabin and that she had a medical condition which prevented her working elsewhere. Unless the covenant were modified, she would be out of work and reliant on benefits.

Three of the couple’s neighbours, however, vehemently objected to the proposed modification. Their concerns focused on such matters as vehicle parking, loss of privacy and impact on property values. The dispute had given rise to such strong feelings that the local police force had sought a resolution.

Ruling on the matter, the FTT found that the cabin’s business use in accordance with the planning permission was reasonable. The covenant was not intended to prevent residents occasionally working from home, alone on a laptop in a spare room. It did not prohibit all activity with a commercial purpose. Low-level business use of an existing building for small-scale business purposes was generally consistent with a residential neighbourhood.

In rejecting the couple’s application, however, the FTT noted that the covenant had been in place for only about 10 years, since the couple bought their newly built home. There was evidence that the neighbourhood’s developer had brought the covenant to purchasers’ attention and explained its purpose.

Homebuyers were offered the opportunity to move into a controlled environment where the appearance of the neighbourhood would remain the same and non-domestic uses would be prohibited. The covenant ensured its preservation as a pleasant place to live.

Every property in the neighbourhood had the potential to be put to business use and, were the covenant modified, objectors feared that would represent the thin end of the wedge, creating a damaging precedent. Overall, the FTT found that the covenant provided a high degree of protection to the amenity of the neighbourhood’s residents and secured for them a practical benefit of substantial advantage. Given that finding, the FTT had no jurisdiction to grant the modification sought.

Mental Capacity and Divorce – High Court Ends ‘Empty Husk’ Marriage

Posted on by Wellers

Only those with the mental capacity to make important decisions for themselves can consent to marriage – or divorce. However, as a High Court ruling made plain, it is in no one’s best interests for the law to maintain a marriage that has become no more than an empty husk.

The case involved a couple whose marriage was already under considerable strain when the husband sustained a severe brain injury. Prolonged and expensive divorce proceedings followed but, more than 15 years on, they remained married. They had barely seen each other during much of that period.

With the support of a close friend, the husband sought a decree nisi. His petition was initially resisted by the wife, who was concerned that the dissolution of the marriage would be financially disadvantageous to her and, particularly, to the couple’s adult children. However, she withdrew her opposition at the end of the court hearing.

Ruling on the matter, the Court had no doubt that the husband lacked capacity to consent to a divorce. Formerly a charismatic and energetic man, his condition had sadly deteriorated to the point where even the most rudimentary decisions were beyond him. He lived a largely reclusive life and there had been little, if any, contact between him and the wife for well over a decade.

Given such a long estrangement, the Court observed that the core features of what constitutes a marriage had evaporated. There was something inevitably corrosive of the status and importance of the institution of marriage in preserving a legal framework which, for both of them, had become a mere empty vessel.

The prevailing evidence indicated that, at a time when he still had decision-making capacity, the husband regarded the marriage as having irretrievably broken down. The wife, too, had come to regard the marriage as at an end. To maintain the status quo in those circumstances would risk demeaning all involved. Reaching the very clear conclusion that a divorce was in the husband’s best interests, the Court found that a decree nisi was a necessary step that had been avoided for far too long.

Want to Keep Your Will a Secret? High Court Ruling Underlines the Pitfalls

Posted on by Wellers

Tensions simmer within many families and, when making your will, you may wish to keep its contents secret from your loved ones so as to avoid feeding the fire. As a High Court case showed, however, that makes it all the more vital to engage a solicitor to assist you in expressing your wishes.

By his will, a moderately prosperous businessman bequeathed all that he owned to his wife. The document was dated just over a month before he died in hospital. One of his daughters, who would have inherited part of his estate had he died without making a valid will, challenged its authenticity.

Ruling on the matter, the Court noted that the case was unusual in that there was no evidence as to how the will was created. There was no record of instructions having been given to a solicitor and it was unclear whether the document was home-made or expertly drafted. In the absence of professional involvement, the identity of the will’s author itself remained uncertain.

There were certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will, not all of which could be explained. However, in upholding the document’s validity, the Court rejected arguments that it was the product of a large-scale conspiracy, perpetrated by several people and persisted in for a long period.

The wording of the will was, at least in part, apparently based on a foreign precedent and the Court was satisfied that it was not the work of a professional well versed in English law. The document was capable of being a valid will, however, and its contents made complete rational sense in that there was no evidence that the man had any financial dependants other than his wife.

The decisive evidence, however, came from two witnesses to the will who testified that they had seen him sign it at his home. Given the rows and distrust that had riven his family, they complied with his request not to mention the will to anyone else. In the event, the document did not come to light until after his death.

In ruling that the will had been rightly admitted to probate, the Court was satisfied that, as required by law, the man had signed the document in the presence of two witnesses who had themselves subsequently appended their signatures to the document’s attestation clause.

What Can a Family Judge Do When Faced With a Parent’s Absolute Defiance?

Posted on by Wellers

In cases where even a succession of stiff prison sentences has failed to bring about compliance with court orders, what is a judge to do? A family judge faced exactly that quandary in the case of a father who defiantly refused to cooperate in arranging the return of his two daughters from Libya to England.

As long ago as 2015, the father flew with his three children to Tunisia on an agreed visit to see their paternal grandmother. Instead of returning to this country, however, he took the children to Libya, the country of his birth. He subsequently returned to England with his son, but his daughters had, so far as was known, remained in Libya ever since.

Although one of the daughters had attained adulthood – the other was approaching her teens – neither of them was permitted to leave Libya without their father’s formal consent. At their mother’s behest, various court orders were made requiring him, amongst other things, to give such consent and to use his best endeavours to procure their return to England.

His persistent refusal to comply with those orders resulted in findings of contempt of court being made against him on four separate occasions. He received prison sentences totalling five years. His continued defiance, however, did not deter the mother from applying to have him committed to prison yet again.

His lawyers realistically submitted no mitigation on his behalf. They argued, however, that a further prison sentence would have no coercive effect on him in that he was determined to do nothing to help procure his daughters’ return to England. Even if granted further time for compliance, he would not alter his stance.

Had the father been prosecuted in a criminal court, his lawyers pointed out that the maximum sentence for child abduction is seven years’ imprisonment. After a one-third deduction for a guilty plea, the maximum would be 56 months. He had already been sentenced to more than that for his successive acts of civil contempt.

Ruling on the matter, the judge noted that the maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years. However, it was possible for successive breaches of the same court orders to result in successive findings of contempt and successive terms of imprisonment which, in aggregate, exceeded two years.

In sentencing the father to a further 12-month jail term, the judge refused to overlook his wilful defiance and the appalling consequences of his conduct. Even if the sentence had no coercive effect, it was still an appropriate punishment. There was no basis for suspending the term in that he had given not an ounce of indication that that would achieve anything. The judge expressed the hope that his separation from his son during his period behind bars might prompt him to think again.