Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
View all articles
Authors

FAMILY PROVISION: H v J's Personal Representatives, Blue Cross, RSPB and RSPC [2009] EWHC 3114 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : h-v-j-s-personal-representatives-blue-cross-rspb-and-rspc-2009-ewhc-3114-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 1, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87637

(Family Division; Eleanor King J; 1 December 2009)

The mother did not make any provision for her estranged adult daughter who lived in modest circumstances with five children. The mother left her net estate of £486,000 to charities. The judge at first instance found that the mother had failed to make reasonable provision for her daughter and awarded her £50,000. The daughter appealed and the charities cross-appealed.

The judge should not have asked whether mother had acted unreasonably but whether on an objective basis, having considered all the factors, the provision, or lack of provision was unreasonable.

The charities' cross-appeal was allowed and no provision was to be made for daughter from estate.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from