Paul Hewitt

In British Diabetic Association v Chenery [2024], Paul and Rosalind Russell acted for the charity Diabetes UK in obtaining an order to prove Mr Chenery's last Will.  Mr Chenery had written the Will on two unconnected pieces of cardboard food packaging.  The case dealt with the provisions of the Wills Act 1837 and the requirement that disconnected sheets be 'under the testator's control' at the time of execution.  Click here to read our summary.

In Adler v CTCL and Klein [2024], Paul, Alexandra Dix and Rebecca Edwards acted for the successful defendant, Mrs Klein (the first defendant being neutral and not participating for cost reasons), in a construction claim relating to several documents which the claimant alleged established that she was the beneficial owner of shares in 15 companies rather than the estate (from which we have previously succeeded in removing her as executor).  The Chief Master found that the claim was issued in a 'cynical attempt' to frustrate Mrs Klein's 1975 Act claim for financial provision from her late husband's estate.  The Chief Master awarded Mrs Klein her costs on an indemnity basis.    
 

In Bond v Webster and others [2024], Paul, Olivia Turner, Debbie Nicholls-Carr and Alexandra Dix acted for Lindsay and Mike Bond, the successful parties in a will dispute that led to one of the longest probate trials to take place in the High Court.  Their father, Reg Bond, a self-made multimillionaire who built up one of the UK's most valuable tyre wholesale businesses, had a longstanding intention to treat all four children equally. However, the Judge found (after hearing 12 days of evidence from 22 witnesses) that not long before Reg passed away, a secret plan had been hatched by those around him to exclude Lindsay and Mike at a time by which he no longer had the necessary capacity (and the suspicious circumstances meant in any event that he could not be satisfied that Reg had the necessary knowledge and approval) to make a will.  Click here to read our summary and here to read the judgment.

In Pead v Prostate Cancer UK & Others, reported at [2023] WTLR 1089, the deceased's stepson tried to exclude three cancer charities from sharing in the residuary estate, arguing that his stepfather had intended the residue to go solely to family members.  Paul and Rosalind Russell represented the charities in successfully defending their entitlement to residue. (The dispute then mutated into a widely-reported argument over costs, which didn't involve the charities, between the drafting solicitor and the stepson.) Click here to read the original judgment.

In Berger v Schuman [2024], Paul and Rosalind Russell acted for Corinne Berger, one of two sisters appointed co-administrators of their mother's estate. Mrs Berger sought the court's assistance in circumstances where her sister was (amongst other things) refusing to follow professional advice about marketing their mother's flat, which as a result had not sold despite being on the market for over a year. Mrs Berger not only obtained the order she needed, but the Judge held it was 'entirely reasonable' for her to have made her claim and ordered her sister to pay 60% of the costs personally (with the rest coming out of the estate). Click here to read our summary and here to read the costs judgment.

In 2023, Paul and Alexandra Dix acted for Withers Trust Corporation in the estate of Adrian Berry, securing full relief from the forfeiture rule in the light of the tragic circumstances. Mr Berry had assisted in the death of his terminally ill wife, before taking his own life. As a result of the relief granted, Mr Berry's estate receives the benefit of his wife's estate, such that all their assets pass to their intended charity, free of inheritance tax. Click here to read the judgment and here to read our briefing note.

In Klein v Adler and Klein, Paul and Alexandra Dix acted for the successful claimant, Mrs Klein, in an action to replace the executor with an independent administrator, the Deputy Master holding that there had been a ‘real failure to progress the administration’ resulting in part from her lack of modern technological ability which served to emphasise why she was ‘not a suitable person to carry through the administration of the estate’. Click here to read the judgment.

Paul represented Sightsavers, acting under its formal name as representative for twenty other charities, in Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind v Beasant and others [2021], an application to determine that a legacy expressed to be equal to the maximum passing free of tax has a nil value where there are already gifts to non-exempt beneficiaries exceeding the tax free element.  Sir Anthony Mann upheld the decision on appeal in Beasant v Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind [2022].  Click here to read our briefing note on the case, click here to read the appeal and here to read the original judgment.