Ilott v Mitson (2015)

On 1 March 2016, the Supreme Court reported that it has given the residuary charity beneficiaries (the RSPCA, RSPB and Blue Cross) leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ilot v Mitson that increased an award to an estranged daughter for reasonable financial provision from her mother’s estate. 

Sarah Playforther writes article for Trusts and Estates Law & Tax Journal.

Under the forfeiture rule, if you kill another person you cannot benefit from their death.  In the recent case of Henderson v Wilcox a son who had killed his mother tried to argue that the rule should not apply to him and that he should be allowed to inherit under her Will anyway.  The case examines the circumstances in which the Court can relax the forfeiture rule, which is not as straightforward as it seems.

Kingsley Napley named '23rd Best Company to Work For' in UK in Sunday Times' 100 Best Companies listing 2016. 
 

Wooldridge v Wooldridge [2016]

The Central London County Court have dismissed a claim bought pursuant to the provisions of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Act) by the Deceased’s wife, Thandi Wooldridge, for further financial provision. Ms Wooldridge inherited the family estate worth approximately £4.25 million and a further £1.6 million in other assets but sought to argue that she had an annual expenditure need of £372,000 and such financial provision was not sufficient. The Defendants to the claim, the Deceased’s two sons, argued that such a claim was entirely disproportionate and that there was only “a finite pot” of money available. 

At the time of year when marital meltdowns are at their peak, The Mail on Sunday asked the country’s most senior divorce lawyers for their advice.