Oliver appeared for the claimant in this contested probate matter.  The claimant client obtained probate of her mother’s last will in the face of challenges based on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence, and because

Oliver appeared for the claimant in this contested probate matter.  The claimant client obtained probate of her mother’s last will in the face of challenges based on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence, and because

The parties were members of the traveller community. The claimant sought specific performance of an oral agreement between him and the defendant for the sale and purchase of the entire share capital of an unquoted company

Introduction and Background This case concerns the estate of the deceased, Richard Norman Scott, and the promises he is said to have made regarding ownership of the family farm to his second oldest son, Adam, who

Oliver Wooding successfully acted for two executors to prove a will which was challenged by the Deceased’s daughter on grounds of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, and undue influence.

Oliver Wooding, a member of our Chancery and Commercial team, acted alongside Sharon Macaulay, Wendy Rixon and Ravandeep Khela of Taylor Rose pro-bono on behalf of the three year old daughter (and her legal guardian) of Cher Maximen,

Head of Chancery, Christopher Jones was instructed by Michael Brierley of Everys Solicitors to represent Josephine Oakley at trial in a case of revocation by destruction and capacity (Crew v Oakley [2024] EWHC 2847 (Ch)).

Joss Knight of our Wills & Trusts team was instructed by Wolferstans LLP to act for the successful claimant in Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) before HHJ Matthews in which the last will of the claimant’s late father was declared invalid.

Head of Chancery, Christopher Jones was instructed by Tony Pearce of Richard Nelson LLP to represent the claimant, Duncan McNiven, in his claim to establish a beneficial interest in a residential property in Tewkesbury.

One of the leading cases on the meaning of detriment in a proprietary estoppel claim. The Court of Appeal confirmed that any non-financial disadvantage had to be weighed against financial benefit, even where the non-financial disadvantage

A proprietary estoppel claim relating to a farm in Cornwall. An application for summary judgment made by the defendant was dismissed but on condition that the claimant paid money into court or charged various assets belonging

Christopher Jones was instructed by Tim Watson of Brewer Harding Rowe LLP in a complex property and trust dispute to represent the claimant, Sharon Barnard in her claim for declarations and consequential orders in connection with