Lamothe v Lamothe & Ors [2006] EWHC 1387 (Ch) (15 June 2006)

Lamothe v Lamothe & Ors [2006] EWHC 1387 (Ch) (15 June 2006)

The 1995 Will, by its express revocation clause and the inclusion of 'wheresoever situated' in the residue clause, was intended by Mrs Lamothe to revoke the 1993 Will and dispose of her entire estate, including English property. There is no clear and unequivocal evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation. Extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of Ronald Lamothe and the drafting lawyer, supports the conclusion that revocation was intended.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1387 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Beverley Lamothe; First Defendant: Ronald Lamothe; Second Defendant: Albert Augustine; Third Defendant: Maria Wallace; Fourth Defendant: Ruby Mangal; Fifth Defendant: Louisa Lamothe; Sixth Defendant: Jordan Lamothe; Seventh Defendant: Jessica Lamothe; Eighth Defendant: Jermaine Lamothe; Ninth Defendant: Asher Mackenzie Lamothe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Probate/chancery / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed, subject to notification of unserved beneficiaries
Legal Topics
Revocation of Wills, Interpretation of Wills, Probate Procedure, Extrinsic Evidence in Probate
Wills and Probate Trusts and Estates Revocation of Wills Interpretation of Wills Probate Procedure Extrinsic Evidence in Probate

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverley Lamothe

Claimant

Ronald Lamothe

First Defendant

Albert Augustine

Second Defendant

Maria Wallace

Third Defendant

Ruby Mangal

Fourth Defendant

Louisa Lamothe

Fifth Defendant

Jordan Lamothe

Sixth Defendant

Jessica Lamothe

Seventh Defendant

Jermaine Lamothe

Eighth Defendant

Asher Mackenzie Lamothe

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/chancery / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1995 Dominica will revoked the 1993 English will of Catherine Agnes Lamothe
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine the testator's intention regarding revocation
  3. 3 Whether the 1995 will was intended to deal with all property or only property in Dominica

Ratio Decidendi

The 1995 Will, by its express revocation clause and the inclusion of 'wheresoever situated' in the residue clause, was intended by Mrs Lamothe to revoke the 1993 Will and dispose of her entire estate, including English property. There is no clear and unequivocal evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation. Extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of Ronald Lamothe and the drafting lawyer, supports the conclusion that revocation was intended.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed, subject to notification of unserved beneficiaries

Orders

  • Grant of probate in respect of the 1993 Will to be revoked, subject to proper notification of other potential beneficiaries.
  • Grant of probate of the 1995 Will to the Claimant.