-
![Wilkinson v. Kirkham [2026] EWHC 1006 (Ch)](https://trustsbarrister.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/rcj3.jpg?w=714)
Wilkinson v. Kirkham [2026] EWHC 1006 (Ch)
Read more: Wilkinson v. Kirkham [2026] EWHC 1006 (Ch)A gift of residue “to the daughter of” is not void for uncertainty where there is more than one daughter – ‘the expression “the daughter” refers to the daughters, who take under clause 4 of the will in equal shares’: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2026/1006
-
![Jenkins & Anor v. Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch)](https://trustsbarrister.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/rcj2.jpg?w=946)
Jenkins & Anor v. Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch)
Read more: Jenkins & Anor v. Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch)In a case where the ‘golden rule’ was not observed, and it was presumed that the appointment of Solicitor executors would be ‘abused… through improper charging’, the evidence of the Solicitor executor as to mental capacity was considered to carry ‘all the weight which the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pritchard, at [79], contemplated…
-
![Khatun v. Hasan & Anor [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch)](https://trustsbarrister.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ut-rolls-building.jpg?w=907)
Khatun v. Hasan & Anor [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch)
Read more: Khatun v. Hasan & Anor [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch)A sole beneficiary fails to prove validity of a Will where circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will aroused the suspicion of the Court, despite ‘first hand evidence of those claiming to have been directly involved in the drafting, witnessing and execution’: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2025/1658