header-logo header-logo

30 October 2014 / Henrietta Mason , Paola Fudakowska
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

The art of the matter

masonfudakowska

Henrietta Mason & Paola Fudakowska provide a wills & probate update

In Rawstron v Freud [2014] EWHC 2577 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 14 (Aug), Lucian Freud made his last will on 10 May 2006. It was professionally drawn up and the residue was left as follows: “I give all the residue of my estate (out of which shall be paid my funeral and testamentary expenses and my debts) and any property over which I have a general power of appointment to the said Diana Mary Rawstron and the said Rose Pearce jointly.”

Pearce was one of Freud’s daughters. Rawstron was Freud’s solicitor. She had worked for him since 1986 and for the 20 years before he died had had almost daily contact with him. The will also appointed the two women as sole executors.

Mr Freud died on 20 July 2011 leaving a net estate of around £42m.

Pearce and Rawstron claimed to be absolutely entitled to the residuary estate, while also making clear that this gift of residue was subject to a trust imposed by Freud,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll