Paul Hewitt

In British Red Cross and Others v Werry and Others, reported at [2017] WTLR 441, Paul, together with Richard Walker successfully appealed a 1975 Act order made as long ago as April 2011 on the basis that it resulted from a fundamental mistake (namely a belief that the deceased had died intestate when, five years later, it was discovered he had made a will). Click here read our briefing note on the case.

In Royal Society v Robinson & others Paul and Katie Emerson acted for the Royal Society in its successful application to extend the meaning of ‘United Kingdom’ to include Jersey and the Isle of Man in the context of the Will of the eminent physicist, Michael Crowley-Milling. Click here to read our briefing note on the case

In Bourke v Favre [2015] EWHC 277 (Ch), Paul acted for the owner of Chettle in Dorset, one of a handful of privately held villages in England, in response to her nephew’s claim that she was required to leave him the entire village based on a purported 50 year old oral family agreement. The Court rejected the nephew’s attempt to add a significant new cause of action, proprietary estoppel, after exchange of witness statements. Click here to see the decision. The substantive dispute settled shortly thereafter.

In the matter of the estate of Nicholas Turquand-Young [2013] JRC 235, Paul, working with Jersey advocates, advised Macmillan Cancer Support on an application before the Royal Court of Jersey about the correct interpretation of a will. Under the will, two shares of residue were left to Macmillan, but under different former names. The executor considered Macmillan only took one share. The Royal Court, applying English law, held that Macmillan was entitled to both shares.

In the matter of the representation of Hawksford Executors, reported at [2013] JRC 188, Paul and Phineas Hirsch working with Jersey advocates advised RSPCA, Cancer Research UK and RAF Benevolent Fund in securing an order that Mrs Ivelaw had not intended to revoke an earlier will benefiting the three charities when making a later Belgian will.

Paul acted for Louisa Hodkin in a judicial review of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages’ refusal to register a Church of Scientology Chapel as a place of religious worship (thereby denying Louisa and her fiancé the right to a legally recognised marriage in their own church). Ouseley J refused the application, reported at [2013] ACD 32, because he was bound by a 1970’s Court of Appeal authority, but recognised that Scientology is a religion. In a separate judgment the Judge gave permission to seek leave to appeal direct to the Supreme Court (leapfrog). The Supreme Court expedited the hearing and in December 2013 unanimously upheld the appeal. Click here to view Lord Toulson summarising the Court’s decision, which is reported at [2014] AC 610 and [2014] WLR 23.

Paul and Natasha Stourton acted for the first defendant in re Goodman, decd, reported at [2013] 3 WLR 1551, where Newey J, on appeal from Master Bragge, upheld the first instance decision on removal of executors (Paul was the successful advocate before Master Bragge).

In Burgess v Hawes Paul and Natasha Stourton acted for the successful claimants in overturning a will purported to be that of their late mother and securing recovery of lifetime transfers from their sister and her immediate family. The Court of Appeal, reported at [2013] WTLR 453, unanimously upheld the first instance decision which is reported at [2012] WTLR 423. Click here to view the decision. Click here to read our briefing note on the case.

Paul acted for the trustees in the Hastings Bass matter of Futter v Futter in their application to set aside an advancement, the result of incorrect tax advice, which went to the Supreme Court. The first instance decision is reported at [2010] WTLR 609. The Court of Appeal decision is reported at [2011] 2 All ER 450.

In Spurling & another v Broadhurst & Others, reported at [2012] WTLR 1813, Paul and Paola Fudakowska represented the executors who sought a declaration to determine which of four possible constructions was the correct interpretation of the will.

In Semmens v Hards & Another (2011), Paul acted for the deceased’s nephew to secure relief from forfeiture and ensure that he received his uncle’s entire estate, notwithstanding assistance in his uncle’s final trip to the Dignitas Clinic.

In Clark v World Wildlife Fund and Others, reported at [2011] WTLR 961, Paul Hewitt and Natasha Stourton represented the charities who successfully argued that English law governs the validity of a will dealing with English immovable property (the first judicial approval of the rule in Dicey). The court also held that England rather than Alabama is the appropriate forum for the dispute, despite the testatrix’s nephew, Mr Clark, having obtained letters of administration in Jefferson County, Alabama.

In Re MN, reported at [2010] WTLR 1355, a dispute over the enforcement of a Californian Order that MN be returned to California, Paul and Stephen Richards represented MN’s niece. It is the leading authority on cross-border welfare disputes in the Court of Protection.