Phillips v. Camerson & Ors [1999] EWHC Ch 245 (24th March, 1999)

Phillips v. Camerson & Ors [1999] EWHC Ch 245 (24th March, 1999)

The inter vivos gifts made by the attorneys under the EPA, including provision for Jamie's education, were valid exercises of the power under the 1985 Act as they met needs Mrs Cameron might have been expected to provide for. These gifts were portions and, in the absence of contrary intention, pro tanto adeemed the legacy to Donald under Mrs Cameron's will. The executors are not liable to Donald for breach of duty as the distribution on the basis of ademption was correct.

Citation
[1999] EWHC Ch 245
Parties
Plaintiff/executor: Peter David Phillips; First Defendant/beneficiary: Donald Cameron; Second Defendant/attorney/beneficiary: Alastair Cameron; Third Defendant/attorney/beneficiary: Hamish Cameron; Fourth Defendant/attorney/executor/beneficiary: Iain Cameron
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Ademption, Enduring Powers of Attorney, Inter Vivos Gifts, Portions, Executor Liability
Wills and Probate Trusts and Estates Powers of Attorney Ademption Enduring Powers of Attorney Inter Vivos Gifts Portions Executor Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter David Phillips

Plaintiff/executor

Donald Cameron

First Defendant/beneficiary

Alastair Cameron

Second Defendant/attorney/beneficiary

Hamish Cameron

Third Defendant/attorney/beneficiary

Iain Cameron

Fourth Defendant/attorney/executor/beneficiary

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inter vivos gifts made by attorneys under an Enduring Power of Attorney were valid exercises of the power under the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether such gifts pro tanto adeemed the legacy to Donald under Mrs Cameron's will
  3. 3 Whether the executors are liable to Donald in damages for breach of duty if there was no ademption

Ratio Decidendi

The inter vivos gifts made by the attorneys under the EPA, including provision for Jamie's education, were valid exercises of the power under the 1985 Act as they met needs Mrs Cameron might have been expected to provide for. These gifts were portions and, in the absence of contrary intention, pro tanto adeemed the legacy to Donald under Mrs Cameron's will. The executors are not liable to Donald for breach of duty as the distribution on the basis of ademption was correct.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the inter vivos gifts made by the attorneys were valid exercises of the EPA and pro tanto adeemed Donald's legacy under the will
  • No liability on the executors for breach of duty