header-logo header-logo

26 April 2012 / Henrietta Mason , Paola Fudakowska
Issue: 7511 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Willpower

Paola Fudakowska & Henrietta Mason provide a wills & probate update

In Burgess & Burgess v Hawes [2012] WTLR 423, Mrs Burgess (B) prepared a will on 23 September 1996 leaving her estate equally between her three children, Julia (J), Peter (P) and Libby (L). On 20 December 2006, after an argument between J and P, J took B to a solicitor to prepare a new will which would leave her estate to J and L alone. On 27 December 2006, B had a fall. On 12 January 2007, J took B to see the solicitor and B signed a will excluding P. In April 2007, B opened a joint account with J, into which she paid a significant portion of her savings and her pension. On 23 November 2007, B suffered a stroke. A CAT scan showed signs of previous damage to the brain, which were likely to have resulted from a previous stroke. B died on 30 May 2009.

L (despite taking more under the 2007 will than the 1996 will) and P sought to challenge the validity of the 2007 will on

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