Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
A day in the life Of...
Zahra Pabani
Zahra Pabani
Partner - Family Law
Read on
Hand and another v George and another [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch)
Date:28 MAR 2017
Third slide
Law Reporter

(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
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2019 edition due out in May
£559.99
Family Law
Family Law
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with...
£389
Financial Remedies Handbook
Financial Remedies Handbook
Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook...
£91.99