Freedman v Freedman and others

Mistake Rectification. Two properties were placed in trust for the benefit of the claimant. Her father loaned her money to purchase one of the properties. The claimant made a settlement by which she would pay the loan back to her father. The solicitor failed to inform her of the negative effects of doing so. On learning of the negative effects, she sought to have the settlement set aside, on the grounds of equitable mistake. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Commissioners resisted the application. The Chancery Division held that, applying settled law, it was appropriate for the settlement to be set aside.

Simon v Byford and others

Will Testator. The claimant challenged the validity of his mother's will, which had omitted specific bequests to him of 16 shares in a company and a flat from a previous will. The expert evidence provided that the deceased had been suffering dementia at the time that the will was made. The Chancery Division, in upholding the validity of the will, found that the deceased had understood it, and had known and approved of its provisions.

*R (on the application of Sandiford) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Judicial Review Application for judicial review. The claimant was a British national who had been convicted of trafficking narcotics in Indonesia and sentenced to death by firing squad. She applied for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy not to fund legal representation for British nationals facing the death penalty abroad. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application and she appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal, holding that the claimant was not within the scope of European Union law or the European Convention on Human Rights and that the policy was not irrational.

Matthews v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Solicitor Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant had been found guilty of breaching the solicitors' code of conduct. Before the tribunal, he had agreed to pay costs of 16,000 and was subsequently fined 5,000. The solicitor appealed, contending that the sanction had been excessive. The Administrative Court found that the tribunal's reasons had been lacking and found that it was apparent that it had failed to take into account means when considering overall financial liability. Although the tribunal had been entitled to find that a fine was warranted, in circumstances where there was substantial mitigation, the magnitude of the fine had been excessive. Overall financial liability would be reduced from 21,000 to 5,000 comprising a fine of 500 and costs of 4,500.

Public Safety Charitable Trust v Milton Keynes Council

Rates Charitable and other organisations. The instant proceedings concerned three appeals by way of case stated from magistrates' courts, which each raised the same central issue concerning the test for relief for charities from non-domestic rates in relation to the activities of the Public Safety Charitable Trust. The Administrative Court applied Kenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council (), to the effect that the natural reading and meaning of the words used in of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 were apt to cover not only consideration of the purpose of the use, but also the extent or amount of the actual use.

*Futter and another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Pitt and another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Settlement Advancement. In two appeals concerning private trusts, the Supreme Court explained the rule in Hastings-Bass as it applied to fiduciaries and breaches of their duty. The Court also explained the rule for setting aside a voluntary disposition on the ground of mistake.

C v Birminham & Solihul Mental Health NHS Trust and another

Mental health Patient. The claimants were both restricted patients subject to restriction orders under the . They applied to the First Tier Tribunal for a recommendation for transfer to a less restrictive location. The First Tier Tribunal declined to deal with the requests and the claimants appealed, asserting that there was a legitimate expectation that the requests would be considered. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeals on the basis that there was no such legitimate expectation.

Greaves v Stolkin

Will Validity. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, a deceased had known and had approved of the contents of a disputed codicil. Accordingly, the codicil was valid and should be admitted to probate.

PC (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and another v A Local Authority

Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, whilst the Court of Protection had posed the correct test, under the to the question of whether a woman with learning difficulties had had capacity to make a decision whether to live with her husband in circumstances where her husband had been convicted of serious sexual offences against his former wives, the court had erred in its approach to the circumstances of the case. In circumstances where the individual concerned had had capacity to marry, she had to be taken to have capacity to make a decision to perform the terms of her marriage contract. Clear and cogent evidence would be required for the court to determine that she had lacked the capacity to cohabit with her husband, and there was no such evidence in the instant case.

Bennett v Petit and others

Will Execution. The Chancery Division pronounced in favour of a will made in 1992 which benefited the step-grandchildren of the deceased and not his son, from whom he had allegedly become estranged. In all the circumstances, it was unsurprising that the deceased had gone along with the idea that, in the event of his wife dying first, his estate should go to the step-grandchildren. That might have followed a persistent campaign of nagging or similar pressure and amounted to a resigned reaction of the deceased for the sake of a quieter life, but no case of undue influence had been advanced.