The months following the last update (see 'Willing reform' [1994] Gazette, 6 January, 28) have seen a number of important developments, mostly in the field of revenue law and probate.However, perhaps the most interesting case to arise was Hambro v Duke of Marlborough in the Chancery Division ([1994]The Times, 25 March).Morritt J held that the court had jurisdiction under s.64 of the Settled Land Act 1925 to authorise the tenant for life of settled estates to vary the beneficial interest of an ascertained beneficiary of full age and capacity, even where the beneficiary did not consent, provided the variation was for the benefit of the settled land or all the beneficiaries under the settlement.The present Duke of Marlborough sought to vary the interest under the settlement of his eldest son, the Marquis of Blandford.

The latter was the tenant in tail in remainder and would, on his father's death, be entitled to exercise all the statutory powers of a tenant for life.The Marquis of Blandford has received wide coverage in the media for his unbusinesslike habits and prosecutions for varying offences.

The present duke, therefore, did not consider him an appropriate person to exercise the powers he would be entitled to on the duke's death.It was intended to create a new settlement on the Marquis of Blandford under which the trust fund was to be held to pay the income to the present duke for life and subject thereto on protective trusts for the Marquis of Blandford for his life and subject thereto as to both capital and income on the trusts of the subsisting parliamentary settlement established in 1706 for the Blenheim family.The aim was to protect the assets of the family trusts against any actions of the Marquis of Blandford.

The court held this variation was permissible under s.64 of the 1925 enactment.-- WillsIn The Times of 2 May, the case of Corbett v Newey was reported.

In this case it was held that a will could be a valid conditional will even though extrinsic evidence needed to be admitted to substantiate the condition (which was not apparent on the face of the will) so long as the testator was, at the time of execution of the will, clear as to his or her testamentary wishes and intended the will to be the expression of them subject to the fulfilment of a condition.The testatrix had executed a new will but before executing it told her solicitor that she did not wish to sign it until deeds of gifts in respect of certain farms had become effective.The testator, however, executed but did not date the new will in September 1989.

The will made no mention of the gifts of the farms.

She returned the executed will to her solicitor with an accompanying letter, the postscript to which read: 'Can you date my will when Sarah and William have finally and legally accepted the deeds of gift of the farms.'The gifts of the farms were formally and legally completed on 25 December 1989 and the solicitor, in pursuance of his client's written instructions, dated the will 26 December 1989.

The testator died in February 1991.The court held that extrinsic evidence as to condition was admissible and that this was a valid conditional will and the condition had been fulfilled.-- Living willsThe thorny question of living wills has once again been debated (see 'Testament of intent' [1994] Gazette, 20 April, 26).In a recent Law Society publication, The Elderly Client Handbook, by Gordon R Ashton, a living will precedent is reproduced on p.214.

Both the book and this precedent are well worth a look.The only other really good living will is that produced by the Terrence Higgins Trust.

This is, I believe, reproduced in Butterworth's Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents and also in its Wills Probate and Administration Service.There has also been a practice note (reproduced in the Solicitors Journal, 22 April 1994) headed 'Persistent vegetative state'.This reinforces the decisions in Avondale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 and Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1994] The Times, 19 January to the effect that the termination of artificial feeding and hydration for patients in a persistent vegetative state will, in virtually all cases, require the prior sanction of a High Court judge.The practice note states that application must be by way of origination summons issued in the Family Division of the High Court in the form set out in the note.It also refers to the fact that the official solicitor's legal staff are prepared to discuss PVS cases before proceedings are issued.-- ProbateUnder the heading 'Probate: valuation of items covered under the Consumer Protection Act' [1994] Gazette, 30 March, 38 reported that the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers and the Capital Taxes Office had drawn up guidelines for the valuation of items for probate which cannot be sold at auction, or in course of business generally, to realise capital.The guidelines cover all goods for which safety regulations have been made under the Consumer Protection Act - they mainly apply to furniture.In Starke v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1994] Gazette, 30 March, 37, the court held that a farmhouse and outbuildings on agricultural land were not entitled to agricultural relief under s.116 of the Inheritance Act 1984.At present there is a private member's Bill before Parliament to rectify the unfortunate consequences of s.339 of the Insolvency Act 1986.This section effectively means that undervalue/gratuitous transfers within five years of transferors' bankruptcy can be set aside.

Unfortunately, there is no protection against the effect of this section for bona fide purchasers without notice (see 'Costs of giving have gone up' [1992] Gazette, 22 January, 2) and therefore if, for example, there has been an inter-spousal gift of the matrimonial ho me, this has led to a prudent purchaser's solicitor requiring indemnity insurance against the risks inherent in s.339 on a sale by a voluntary/undervalue transferee.The private member's Bill seeks to rectify s.342 of the Insolvency Act 1986 so that a purchaser will only be vulnerable in the very limited circumstances set out in the Bill.-- Income taxTwo income tax decisions are also noteworthy.

The first of these is Smith v Abbott [1994] 1 WLR 307, a House of Lords decision in respect of allowable expenses under sched E to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.In this case, the Lords decided that the expenses of journalists in purchasing rival newspapers and other journals/periodicals were not deductible for employees under sched E.

The purchase of such items was not, the Lords held, received 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of their duties' under s.189 of the 1988 statute.The decision is questionable.

A number of the periodicals involved were for updating purposes - surely essential for most professionals today.In Sutherland v Gustar (Inspector of Taxes) [1994] Gazette, 13 April, 48, the Court of Appeal accepted that, in the case of partners, a sole partner has a right to appeal against a joint assessment to tax made on the partnership either to the general or special commissioners even though the other partners reached an agreement within the Revenue and his or her appeal was contrary to their wishes.