New time limits have been introduced for challenges to be registered with the NHS. Different time limits now apply to claims concerning living individuals currently receiving care; and claims by families in respect of recovering historic care home fees paid by or on behalf of deceased relatives (known as “retrospective reviews”).
Those currently receiving care
A new time limit has been introduced for challenging decisions of Primary Care Trusts in the cases of living individuals. On 1 April 2012, a time limit of six months has been imposed for the individual or their representative to seek a review of the Primary Care Trust’s decision.
Retrospective reviews
If you are considering claiming back care home fees paid, in respect of an individual who is now deceased, the new time limits are as follows:-
For care home fees wrongly paid in England between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2011, a claim needs to be registered with the Primary Care Trust before 30 September 2012.
For care home fees wrongly paid in England between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012, a claim is to be registered with the Primary Care Trust before 31 March 2013.
It is crucial that people are aware of these new deadlines, as the clock is ticking for families and Executors of Estates to reclaim wrongly paid nursing home fees.
If you think you have a claim and would like advice, please contact us without delay
Daniel Winter (profile) 
Wednesday 16th May 2012
Care Home Fees stories →
Dispute Resolution stories →
It has been possible to rectify the Will of a deceased person since the Administration of Justice Act 1982 came into force. The recent case in the Estate of Bridget Murray is an extreme example of a claim for rectification and demonstrates just how far some families will go to enforce changes to a Will which on the face of it, appears to incorporate the deceased’s last wishes.
Mrs Caroline Barrett was named a beneficiary of Bridget Murray’s Will. Bridget Murray, Mrs Barrett’s grandmother, a strict Catholic, made the Will a few months before she died. However, Mrs Barrett’s aunt and two uncles issued a claim to rectify the Will on the basis that:
(1) the legacy to Mrs Barrett was a drafting error by the solicitor who drew up the Will, and
(2) Mrs Murray actually had no intention of leaving any of her Estate to her granddaughter because, in her mind, her granddaughter had lived in sin by moving out of her family home to live with her boyfriend for the 18 month period prior to their wedding.
Under the Administration of Justice Act 1982 if a Court is satisfied that the deceased’s Will failed to carry out their intentions due to either a clerical error by the person who drafted the Will, or a failure by the Will draftsman to understand the instructions of the deceased, the Court may order that the Will be rectified to carry out the true intentions of the person making the Will.
In this particular case, the Court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mrs Murray did indeed intend to cut her granddaughter out of her Will. The Judge accepted that some might not agree with the strong religious views held by Mrs Murray, but it was not the Court’s decision as to whether those views were held fairly.
This case was widely reported in the press and is a good example of how rectification claims work in practice. It is also a clear example of how important it is that anyone who wishes to make a Will seeks professional advice and instructs someone who has sufficient experience and legal knowledge to draft the Will accurately so that it will carry out their intentions.
Daniel Winter (profile) Wednesday 2nd May 2012
Contentious Probate stories →
Dispute Resolution stories →
Wills, Probate, Tax & Trusts stories →
An interesting validity dispute came before the High Court recently. Olga Smith, the estranged widow of Thomas Joseph Smith, claimed that his last Will, which left nothing to her, his wife, was invalid due to Mr Smith not having sufficient mental capacity at the time that he made his Will. Mr Smith died as a result of a brain tumour. His widow claimed that the brain tumour caused disturbances to Mr Smith’s mind so that he was unable to understand the full nature and effects of the act of making his new Will, and caused him to make a Will that he would not have made had he been in “his right mind”.
Olga Smith described a pattern of irrational behaviour which she said led to their separation, which included Mr Smith dressing in her clothes and assaulting her.
However, Mrs Smith’s claim failed. The Judge found that there was insufficient evidence that Mr Smith did not have mental capacity to make his last Will. In cases where mental capacity is an issue, medical evidence is crucial. Evidence which is usually taken into account is the deceased’s historic medical records giving details of any signs of loss of memory or mental illness, and the testimony of treating doctors and physicians. Whilst it is not known what evidence, apart from her own, Mrs Smith put forward to the Court, the Judge was not convinced.
Mr Smith’s Will was upheld and Olga Smith was ordered to pay her opponent’s legal costs which were substantial.
Validity disputes relating to Wills are becoming more commonplace.Should you require any assistance or advice with regard to either challenging a Will, or defending such a challenge, please contact our specialist Probate Dispute Resolution Team by visiting http://www.nockolds.co.uk/sector-expertise/contentious-probate.htm.
Daniel Winter (profile) Wednesday 21st March 2012
Contentious Probate stories →
Marketing stories →
Nockolds LLP stories →
Wills, Probate, Tax & Trusts stories →
This week saw a successful appeal in the case of Pinnock v Rochester which confirmed that a Claimant may make a claim for financial provision from an Estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975; and also launch a separate claim to challenge the validity of the Will. Many past claimants have probably been under the misapprehension that they could only choose to make one of the claims but not the other.
Mr Pinnock first made a claim against his late father’s Estate for reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act on the basis that his father’s Will did not adequately provide for his needs. Mr Pinnock received £28,000. He then began a claim to challenge the validity of his father’s Will. The validity claim was defended on the basis that a Claimant must choose either a claim for reasonable provision under the 1975 Act, or challenge the validity of the Will, but not both. This argument was accepted by the Court of first instance and it was held that by claiming under the 1975 Act Mr Pinnock had affirmed the validity of the Will and could not then challenge it.
This decision was reversed on appeal and it has been confirmed that it is quite acceptable to make both claims. In the future potential claimants should be careful to consider all their options and not rule out running more than one claim provided there are sufficient grounds and it is tactically advantageous.
Please feel free to contact me for advice on any contentious probate issues.
Daniel Winter (profile) Friday 18th November 2011
Contentious Probate stories →
Dispute Resolution stories →
Wills, Probate, Tax & Trusts stories →
The case of Leonard Taylor has been widely reported in the national press and it concerns a “gift” of £61,000 paid to him by cheque from his partner, Doris Luker, just a week before she died. Two charities, the British Heart Foundation and the Cancer Research Campaign, who between them stood to receive the residue of Ms Luker’s Estate, challenged the “gift” in the High Court, successfully arguing that the payment was in fact a loan. Mr Taylor appealed but now the Court of Appeal has affirmed the High Court’s decision and Mr Taylor has been ordered to pay the charities’ legal costs and openly admits he will have to sell his house to pay them. This case has raised several complex issues regarding lifetime gifts, and the reality is that had Ms Luker taken some simple steps in advance the costly dispute could have been avoided. Lifetime gifts remains a practical and legal option for financial planning but this case underlines the importance of obtaining professional legal advice. The case also highlights the importance to executors of scrutinising every significant lifetime gift as there may well be reason to reclaim such “gifts” and increase the value of the Estate just as the charities found to their favour. Please feel free to contact me for further advice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8867462/Toy-boy-72-faces-losing-home-after-court-battle.html
Daniel Winter (profile) Tuesday 15th November 2011
Contentious Probate stories →
Dispute Resolution stories →
Wills, Probate, Tax & Trusts stories →
