Report comment

There seems to have been a lot of heat, hot air and steam since I last looked at this issue.

Back to basics. Courts over many years pre 1938 interfered with wills on public policy grounds - bequests conditional on religious observance, remaining single or marrying etc. In 1938 Parliament made statutory provision for named categories of persons. Later parliaments have extended these as social and societal norms have changed.

Nothing to do with the EU - rather to the contrary if I understand David's French explanations correctly. Rather the softening of old rigid rules.

Nor is it the fault of the judges who must try cases brought in front of them. No choice - except to encourage settlement.

Nor even the lawyers. Litigants are (were?) entitled to be represented. If lawyers refuse on grounds of disapproval to act for the undeserving, disliked or others on the margins then it is a sorry day.

This case turned on its facts.

Appeal courts won't interfere with fact finding at trial unless the basis for the finding cannot be sustained. Obvious, they weren't there. So I suspect that the SC will proceed on the basis of the facts found at first instance.

The issue will be to what extent, if any, those facts engaged the I (F etc) A in the claimant's favour. And to give guidance on the principles to be applied in the future. I expect that it will be useful for all.

There will, I expect, be little left in the estate at the end. Sad