<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:15:12 GMT--><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Life and Death and Taxes</title><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/</link><description></description><lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:34:25 +0000</lastBuildDate><copyright></copyright><language>en-GB</language><generator>Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</generator><item><title>Tamlin v Edgar</title><category>Directions</category><category>Law</category><category>Public Trustee v Cooper</category><category>Trustees</category><category>Trusts</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:29:42 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/23/tamlin-v-edgar.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:15154599</guid><description><![CDATA[Where trustees make an application to the court for an order within the second category described by Hart j in Public Trustee v Cooper [2001] WTLR 901, at 923, the fact that the decision was momentous and was that of the trustees, and not of the court, made it important that "the court was put into possession of all the relevant facts so that it might be satisfied that the decision of the trustees was both proper and for the benefit of the appointees and advancees".]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-15154599.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Cripps Trust Corporation Ltd v Sands</title><category>Costs</category><category>Law</category><category>Succession</category><category>Trustee</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:26:09 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/14/cripps-trust-corporation-ltd-v-sands.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:15028261</guid><description><![CDATA[The testator conferred on his will trustee a power of appointment over his collection of valuable paintings.  The objects of the power were various named institutions.  The testator left the remainder of his estate to be divided amongst his three grandchildren absolutely.]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-15028261.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Barrett v Bem</title><category>Execution</category><category>Law</category><category>Probate</category><category>Succession</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:41:31 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/8/barrett-v-bem.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:14928176</guid><description><![CDATA[The deceased, who was in hospital, wished to make a will.  His niece wrote out a will document in manuscript, leaving everything to her mother, Anne, who was the deceased's sister. There were two trials (the second after an appeal) and the evidence about the execution was inconsistent.  At the end, the judge held that Anne had tried to steady the deceased's hand as he signed, but then took the pen and signed the will on his behalf.]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-14928176.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Marley v Rawlings upheld</title><category>Law</category><category>Probate</category><category>Rectification</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:17:06 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/7/marley-v-rawlings-upheld.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:14914069</guid><description><![CDATA[Mr and Mrs Rawlings made wills in almost identical terms; each appointed the other, if survived by him or her, to be executor and take the whole estate.  In each case, if the other had not survived, then Mr Marley was appointed executor and universal beneficiary.  Unfortunately, Mr Rawlings executed the will intended for Mrs Rawlings, and she the will intended for him.]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-14914069.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Perdoni v Curati</title><category>Conflict of laws</category><category>Domicile</category><category>Law</category><category>Revocation</category><category>Wills</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:38:12 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/1/12/perdoni-v-curati.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:14547090</guid><description><![CDATA[The terms of the previous will were not revoked by the later will, which did not contain an express revocation clause, having regard to the presumption against implied revocation.]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-14547090.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death</title><category>Family provision</category><category>Intestacy</category><category>LLaw Commission</category><category>News</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:36:31 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/12/14/intestacy-and-family-provision-claims-on-death.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:14106331</guid><description><![CDATA[The Law Commission's report on Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death was published today.]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-14106331.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>The Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 (Commencement) Order 2011</title><category>Forfeiture</category><category>Law</category><category>Succession</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:10:17 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/12/9/the-estates-of-deceased-persons-forfeiture-rule-and-law-of-s.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:14040053</guid><description><![CDATA[Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 come into force on 1st February 2012]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-14040053.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Wright v Gater</title><category>Inheritance tax</category><category>Law</category><category>Maintenance and advancement</category><category>Minors</category><category>Variation of estates</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:57:38 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/11/24/wright-v-gater.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:13852122</guid><description><![CDATA[The deceased (Edward) died instestate in 2009 and his estate, worth in excess of £500,000, passed to his son (Kieran), who died soon afterwards.  Kieran's entire estate (including Edward's estate) passed to his own son (Rory), who was almost two years old at the date of Kieran's death.]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-13852122.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Second Edition of STEP Standard Provisions published</title><category>Law</category><category>Wills STEP</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:02:31 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/10/31/second-edition-of-step-standard-provisions-published.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:13539852</guid><description><![CDATA[The second edition of the STEP standard provisions (England and Wales) have now been published]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-13539852.xml</wfw:commentRss></item><item><title>Independent Schools Council v Charity Commissioners for England and Wales</title><category>Charity</category><category>Law</category><category>Public benefit</category><dc:creator>Leigh Sagar</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:22:56 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/10/19/independent-schools-council-v-charity-commissioners-for-engl.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">759596:8905399:13378858</guid><description><![CDATA[Upper Tribunal: Warren J, Judge McKenna, Judge Ovey; [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC); 13th October 2011]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/rss-comments-entry-13378858.xml</wfw:commentRss></item></channel></rss>
