Robinson v Fernsby & Anor

Robinson v Fernsby & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled, and indeed obliged, to revise his draft judgment before handing it down when he became convinced his initial view was wrong. The judge had properly considered all relevant statutory factors and was entitled to conclude that, in all the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the deceased's will to divide the estate equally between the claimant and Duncan, given the claimant's substantial lifetime gifts and her own choices regarding expenditure and investment. There was no error of law or procedural irregularity warranting appellate intervention.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Venetia Robinson; Respondent/defendant: Roland Fernsby; Respondent/defendant: Duncan Scott-Kilvert
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Inheritance Provision for Family and Dependants, Variation of Judgment Before Perfection, Testamentary Capacity, Maintenance of Adult Children
Succession Law Civil Procedure Inheritance Provision for Family and Dependants Variation of Judgment Before Perfection Testamentary Capacity Maintenance of Adult Children

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 25
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venetia Robinson

Appellant/claimant

Roland Fernsby

Respondent/defendant

Duncan Scott-Kilvert

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of the deceased made reasonable financial provision for the claimant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law or procedure by revising his draft judgment before handing it down
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's circumstances justified greater provision from the estate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled, and indeed obliged, to revise his draft judgment before handing it down when he became convinced his initial view was wrong. The judge had properly considered all relevant statutory factors and was entitled to conclude that, in all the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the deceased's will to divide the estate equally between the claimant and Duncan, given the claimant's substantial lifetime gifts and her own choices regarding expenditure and investment. There was no error of law or procedural irregularity warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The claimant is to pay the respondent's costs of the action on the standard basis.