Articles by ‘Calum Campbell’

On behalf of the Thames Valley Contentious Probate Group we would like to invite you to the next Thames Valley Contentious Trust & Probate Lawyers Network meeting. This quarterly event brings together professionals from across…

Christopher Jones of St John’s Chambers and Calum Campbell of RWK Goodman will facilitate a practical and informative workshop on the administration of contentious estates. Knowing how to respond claims and demands is vital….

You would think that the beneficial ownership of your house or property portfolio should be fairly straightforward and obvious, all the more so if you are the sole legal owner. You should also be free to leave your property, or your share in it, to whoever you choose under your will… right?

In the recent case of Cowan v Foreman a widow attempted to make a claim on an estate 17 months after the relevant deadline had passed. The judge refused to give permission for her late claim, suggesting a stricter approach should be adopted by the court in the future. However, a recent decision in the case of Bhusate v Patel, to allow a widow to make a claim over 25 years out of time, suggests that this strict approach may not be adopted for every case.

The recent case of Blyth v Sykes brought up some interesting issues regarding conditional revocation of a Will. There is little case law in this area of Contentious Probate and establishing whether or not a Will has been effectively revoked is not always as straightforward as it might seem.

The Court of Appeal recently dismissed claims by Christopher and Vivien Nutt alleging that their brother, Colin, had unduly influenced their mother into leaving him her home in her Will dated 2010. Mrs Nutt’s previous Will had divided her estate equally between her three children.

There are various reasons why you may think you should have benefited from a Will (but didn’t!). A recent case, which went to the Court of Appeal, looked at the position of a cohabitee of over 20 years. Mr Warner wanted to stay in his deceased partner’s property, even though he was not left the property in the Will and could afford to buy his own house with personal wealth. The case highlights that the courts can look at claimants’ “maintenance needs” from a variety of angles when deciding on inheritance disputes.

After a landmark case was concluded earlier this year, many people assumed that Will dispute claims by adult children, particularly estranged ones, would be far more difficult to win, if not impossible. However it seems that this is not necessarily the case.

The last thing unmarried couples who have bought a house together tend to think about is “what happens to the house if it all goes wrong?” What if your relationship breaks down? Will you get back what you put in financially? It’s not the most romantic of topics!

It is very difficult to prove that a person was subjected to undue influence when making their Will. However, in a recent case a daughter successfully proved that the reason she was removed from her mother’s Will was due to the false allegations that had been made by her sister to her mother.

While your first thought might be “no”, a recent case has re-confirmed that it is not that clear cut.