Howard v Howard-Lawson
The defendant avoided forfeiture by applying for and endeavouring to obtain the Royal Licence within the prescribed one-year period, as required by clause 8 of the Will. The clause did not require exclusive use of the surname prior to obtaining the licence, and the defendant's actions satisfied the clause's requirements.
- Parties
- Claimant: Philip William Howard; Defendant: Sir John Howard-Lawson
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 January 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issue
- Outcome
- No forfeiture; defendant retains interest.
- Legal Topics
- Construction of Wills, Forfeiture Clauses, Name and Arms Clauses
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Philip William Howard
Claimant
Sir John Howard-Lawson
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issue
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant forfeited his interest under clause 8 of the Will by failing to comply with the name and arms clause within the prescribed period
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant avoided forfeiture by applying for and endeavouring to obtain the Royal Licence within the prescribed one-year period, as required by clause 8 of the Will. The clause did not require exclusive use of the surname prior to obtaining the licence, and the defendant's actions satisfied the clause's requirements.
Court Disposition
No forfeiture; defendant retains interest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment