Probate lawBy Lesley King, College of Law, London

Two new practice statements(Ref LTL25/5/2001) (Chancery Division: estates of deceased Lloyd's names)This replaces the old practice direction (Distribution of Estates of Lloyd's Names (1998)).Personal representatives or trustees, who wish to distribute the estate but are concerned about the possibility of personal liability to Lloyd's creditors, can apply to the court, provided that all liabilities are covered by reinsurance plans, for permission to distribute on the footing that no further provision need be made for the Lloyd's creditors.The practice statement sets out the form to be used for such an application.Practice statement: (Chancery Division: Costs)(2001)This deals with the costs of applications relating to the administration of trusts made by trustees or beneficiaries, or other persons concerned.

Matters covered might be questions as to the validity of the trust or questions of construction or the exercise of powers.

Such proceedings may be hostile but frequently will be with the consent of all parties.If the trustees have power to agree to pay the costs of other parties out of the trust fund and exercise that power properly, there is no need for an order and they can recover from the trust fund any costs they pay.

However, where they do not have such a power, they (or the party concerned) can apply to the court for an order that the costs of any party (including their own) be paid out of the trust fund.The practice statement sets out a model form of order to be used in a straightforward case which can be adapted for use in more complex cases (for example, where the proceedings are hostile).A mixed bag of casesIn executors of Fanny Walker deceased v IRC (SPC No 00275) (2001) (LTL 8/5/01) the special commissioners held that a 50% shareholder who, as chairman of the board directors had a casting vote, had control of the company for the purposes of obtaining business property relief under IHTA 1994, s105(1)(d).In In the Estate of Kazimiera Krzystofowicz deceased sub nom Alicja Danuta Stoker v Rose, Halstead, Krepa and Others LTL 22/5/01, Mr Justice Kenworthy-Browne, the court considered the correct use of a caveat.

The applicant had lodged a caveat in respect of her stepmother's estate.

She had a variety of grievances against the executor of her stepmother's estate and against two solicitors who, she alleged, had dealt wrongly with the administration of her father's estate.

The court held that whatever the rights and wrongs of her grievances they would not be remedied by keeping the caveat alive and delaying the administration of the estate.

The court also refused to appoint her as co-administrator of the estate since it was clear that there would be endless disputes which would delay the administration.In The Will of Clara Broadbent, deceased sub nom Imperial Cancer Fund and Others v Bradley and Ainsworth (LTL 17/5/01) the Court of Appeal considered whether a gift to St Mathews Church for its general purposes with a request that it be used primarily for the upkeep of the church had failed.

The church had been sold and demolished at the date of death.

The court found that it did not fail but took effect as a gift to the trustees of the proceeds of sale of the church.