Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
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