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
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
Emotional harm and interim removal: how psychological thinking can support practice
Dr Ben Laskey ClinPsyD, AFBPS, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, The Psychology PartnershipGeorge Butler, Barrister at Law, 42 Bedford Row ChambersThe family courts are full of cases involving...
View all articles
Authors

WILLS: Walters v Olins [2008] EWCA Civ 782

Sep 29, 2018, 16:28 PM
Slug : walters-v-olins-2008-ewca-civ-782
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 4, 2008, 10:07 AM
Article ID : 85217

(Court of Appeal; Mummery, Dyson and Kay LJJ; 4 July 2008)

The husband inherited the wife's estate under a document purporting to be 'pursuant to an agreement... for the disposal of our property in a similar way by mutual testamentary dispositions', but disputed the application of the mutual wills doctrine to him or to his wife's estate in his hands on the basis that the relevant codicils did not record any express agreement not to revoke the wills being made. The husband appealed the judge's declaration that the codicils in question took effect as mutual wills so as to bind the wife's estate in the husband's hands on the basis that the judge had failed to identify the terms of the contract with sufficient particularity and that there had not been sufficiently clear and satisfactory evidence of mutual wills.

There had been ample evidence to justify the finding that the couple had made the contract referred to in the codicils. The argument resting on the alleged insufficiency or uncertainty of the terms of the contract was misconceived; the obligation on the surviving testator was equitable, and took effect as a constructive trust. The intentions of the husband and the deceased wife had been sufficiently expressed in the contract to lay the foundations for the equitable obligations that bound the conscience of the husband as survivor, in relation to the wife's estate. It had been prudent of the judge not to be drawn into determining other matters, such as the scope or extent of the constructive trust, which had not been raised in the pleadings or in the parties' submissions.

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