Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Woolls v Byrtt [2026] EWHC 1141 (Ch) (11 May 2026)
The High Court refused to remove a daughter as executor, finding the alleged conflicts were impliedly authorised and the proposed claims were weak or disproportionate.
Kaur v Kaur & Ors (Re the Estate of Raj Kaur) [2025] EWHC 2806 (Ch) (03 November 2025)
The court addressed whether advances from a mother to one daughter were loans or gifts, as well as claims over jewellery, rent, and a family heads of agreement.
D2 intentionally breached the court orders with knowledge of their contents and without reasonable excuse, justifying committal for contempt and a custodial sentence.
Source excerpt
The will failed to make reasonable financial provision for David Isaacs, given his age, health, lack of resources, and dependence on the estate for accommodation. A lump sum representing 25% of the residuary estate is reasonable to secure his maintenance, balancing the needs of all parties and the limited size of the estate.
Source excerpt
Bourlakova & Ors v Bourlakov & Ors [2025] EWHC 909 (Ch) (07 April 2025)
The High Court declined to approve a proposed interim funding order for an estate representative, finding the structure too burdensome for the estate, and adjourned the applications.
The interests of the beneficiaries are best served by removing the defendants as executors due to conflict of interest, significant delay, breakdown in relationship, and the likelihood of further litigation if they remain in post.
Source excerpt
Siboni v Ferrari & Anor [2025] EWHC 1110 (Ch) (24 March 2025)
The High Court found D2 in contempt for deliberate breaches of court orders in estate-related proceedings, imposed 14 months' imprisonment, and stayed enforcement for 28 days.
The Will did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant, given her needs, the long marriage, her lack of resources, and the objective standard required by the 1975 Act. The appropriate provision is the transfer of the matrimonial home mortgage-free and a lump sum of £1,864,089 to meet capital and income needs, with further provision (40% of the net estate) if the estate exceeds £7,160,222. The claimant and her son take priority over other beneficiaries. The conduct of the 2nd Defendant justified an indemnity costs order against her share.
Source excerpt
The first defendant had no reasonable basis to suspect the 2014 will was invalid and no reason to investigate; her conduct was grossly unreasonable and outside the norm, justifying indemnity costs. The claimant is entitled to costs from the first defendant and, for unrecovered costs, an indemnity out of the estate.
Source excerpt
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation Ltd [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam) (07 March 2025)
A widow succeeded in part under the 1975 Act, with the court finding the will made unreasonable provision and awarding the matrimonial home plus needs-based financial provision.
Explore more
