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
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...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
View all articles
Authors

Hand and another v George and another [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:48 PM
Inheritance – Adopted children – Will written in 1946 – Domestic law did not include adopted children within the term ‘children’ for the purposes of this will – Whether the Art 14 and Art 8 rights of the grandchildren could be upheld.
The claim of the adopted grandchildren was allowed.
Slug : hand-and-another-v-george-and-another-2017-ewhc-533-ch
Meta Title : Hand and another v George and another [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch)
Meta Keywords : Inheritance – Adopted children – Will written in 1946 – Domestic law did not include adopted children within the term ‘children’ for the purposes of this will – Whether the Art 14 and Art 8 rights of the grandchildren could be upheld.
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 28, 2017, 03:12 AM
Article ID : 114001

(Chancery Division, Rose J, 17 March 2017)

Inheritance – Adopted children – Will written in 1946 – Domestic law did not include adopted children within the term ‘children’ for the purposes of this will – Whether the Art 14 and Art 8 rights of the grandchildren could be upheld.

The claim of the adopted grandchildren was allowed.

The testator died in 1947 leaving his estate to his three children and the remainder to their children. Two of the grandchildren were adopted and it fell to be determined whether adopted children could be classed as ‘children’ for the purposes of the will.

When the will was written in 1946, the law relating to adoption was set out in the Adoption of Children Act 1926. The 1926 Act provided that a child remained the child of his or her birth parents rather than becoming in law the child of their adoptive parents. That position was reversed by the Adoption of Children Act 1949 which stated that any reference to ‘children’ in any disposition of property shall include adopted children. However, for the purposes here the will had to be made after 1950, and this provision, therefore, did not apply. As a matter of domestic law, the claim of the adopted grandchildren would fail.

The claim was allowed on the basis that the court had to respect the Art 14 rights taken in conjunction with Art 8 under the European Convention of the adopted grandchildren not to be discriminated against by the application of a legislative provision which caused the ambiguous reference in the testator’s will to his grandchildren to be construed as excluding them as his adopted grandchildren. That application of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not amount to a retrospective application in such a way which was inconsistent with the decision in Wilson  v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40.

Case No: HC-2016-000146
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE HENRY FREDERICK HAND WILL TRUST

Royal Courts of Justice
The Rolls Building, London, EC4A 1NL


Date: 17 March 2017

Before:

MRS JUSTICE ROSE


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Between:

(1) DAVID JOHN HAND
(2) HILARY JANE CAMPBELL
Claimants

- and -

(1) RICHARD GEORGE
(2) ELIZABETH CAROLYN STANHOPE
(as trustees and beneficiaries of the Henry Fredrick Hand Will Trust)
Defendants


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JONATHAN MILLER (instructed by Carpenter and Co) for the Claimants
JOSH LEWISON (instructed by Birketts Solicitors) for the Defendants


Hearing dates: 1 November 2016 and 3 March 2017

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Judgment

Hand and Another v George and Another [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch).rtf
Categories :
  • Inheritance
  • Judgments
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from