Estoppel meaning

Testamentary capacity Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) – News Analysis: Will overturned for want of testamentary capacity and undue influence (Oliver v Oliver). This judgment is an uncommon instance of a successful attack on a professionally drafted Will for both incapacity and coercion, even where the court had a recording of the testator’s instructions and the GP had issued a supporting certificate. Despite those formalities, the court concluded the Will should be set aside on both grounds. Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP. Leonard v Leonard (by her litigation friend Sharon Thompsett) [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) – News Analysis: High Court offers guidance on the test for testamentary capacity (Leonard v Leonard). The High Court examines and clarifies Banks v Goodfellow, and underscores the continuing importance of expert evidence in capacity disputes. It underscores how clinical and legal evaluations interact closely, effectively. George Vare, barrister at Serle Court Chambers. Wilkinson v Hicken [2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch) – News Analysis: Personality disorders...

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Cost and funding Case management Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Court information HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has issued a revised English Form N215 Certificate of Service for civil proceedings, which also brings in a new statement of truth. While the layout has been updated, the details required remain unchanged, with extra notes added to assist with completing the form. For further detail, see: HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service—LNB News 27/01/2026 36. Additional permanent courtrooms to boost capacity The government will make four former Nightingale Courts in Fleetwood, Telford, Chichester and Cirencester permanent, creating 11 additional courtrooms across England and Wales to increase capacity for criminal, family and civil work and help cut delays. For further detail, see:...

Original news Watt v Dignan and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1390 The central question was whether the Dignans held enforceable easements to use the toilet facilities within unit 27 on an industrial estate. Unit 27 belonged to Mr Watt. It was accepted that these rights had been granted to the Dignans’ predecessors in title, as owners of units 26A and 29, by two conveyances dated 27 September 1985 and 16 April 1987. The further issue was whether they were now prevented by estoppel from asserting those rights. The Recorder at first instance found that they were not, and Mr Watt appealed to the Court of Appeal. What are the practical implications of this case? Although the decision is fact specific, it offers helpful reminders for Property Disputes practitioners about the lines of argument advanced, the fall-out where a case different from that pleaded is pursued, and the consequences where, in any event, the evidence is too thin to sustain that position. What were the facts of...

In this issue: Wills Probate Trusts UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Contentious trusts and estates Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Wills No line of sight—due execution and presence In the Estate of Kathleen Coady, District Judge Chloë Phillips delivered judgment in Coady v Coady PT-2023-BHM-000025 (Business & Property Courts in Birmingham (Probate)), addressing as a preliminary question whether a coronavirus (COVID-19) era ‘garden signing’ met section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The court concluded it did not, rendering the 25 April 2020 Will invalid. Written by Charlotte John of Gatehouse Chambers. See News Analysis: No line of sight—due execution and presence In the Estate of Kathleen Coady. Probate...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not kept up to date. Practical implications of West Tankers In short, the current position arising from the West Tankers saga (so far) is: Any EU Member State court seised of proceedings must rule on its own jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Under Brussels I and Brussels I (recast), courts of another Member State cannot remove that competence from it. An arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of an obligation to arbitrate. Where jurisdiction is disputed (as it often is), consider advising clients to obtain a standalone final award addressing jurisdiction at the outset, and then seek to have it recognised and enforced by the court (the application would be made under the procedure set out in CPR 62). This should prevent a conflicting court judgment taking precedence, on the basis of issue estoppel. Thereafter, the parties can proceed to the liability and quantum issues within the arbitration. West Tankers—the...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE : The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025 For guidance on the Act’s effect on residential tenancies in England, refer to Practice Note: Renters’ Rights Act 2025—key provisions. That Practice Note details which party must issue a break notice and on whom it must be served, along with the acceptable methods of service. It addresses whether service is permitted or required by contract, the statutory frameworks governing service of notices, and the deeming rules under: section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927) section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (IA 1978) the common law It further considers how break notices align with statutory security of tenure for assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) under the Housing Act 1988, and with business tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954)...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) introduced a new framework for the law of adverse possession in relation to registered land, as provided by LRA 2002, Sch 6. The revised regime offers greater protection for landowners whenever a claim for adverse possession of land is brought. Simply having adverse possession for a period exceeding twelve years no longer means the land will have been acquired by the adverse possessor. Rather, following a continuous period of ten years’ adverse possession, the squatter may apply to be registered as proprietor of that land under the scheme, as set out therein...