Skip to content

Jaw jaw not law law

Richard Hall of Aldridge Brownlee Solicitors highlights the importance of regularly reviewing your will.

Families are being urged to talk sooner, rather than fight later, following the recent high profile case of disinherited university lecturer Christine Gill, who won back her family’s £2.3million farm when the court declared her mother’s will invalid.

Richard Hall, Partner at Aldridge Brownlee Solicitors in Bournemouth and chair of LawNet’s Private Client Group said: ”The outcome of this case is really the exception, not the rule. Generally it’s very expensive to contest a will; the occasions on which it’s successful are few, and sadly it often signifies the end of relations between family members. People need to talk and perhaps more importantly, they should regularly review their will. “

The judge gave the verdict after hearing that Christine Gill was given repeated assurances that she would inherit the family farm in North Yorkshire and had shown years of devoted support and care for her ageing parents.

The High Court in Leeds ruled that her reclusive mother had been bullied into making the will, leaving everything to the RSPCA, by her over-bearing husband before his death. The judge was satisfied that Mrs Gill had “an avowed dislike” of the RSPCA and wanted her daughter to inherit the farm, but that she had been unduly influenced by her husband.

Hall added: “We really need to get inheritance out of the closet. There’s often a rather British reserve about discussing these things, but it would be better all round if families were more open at the time.”

“It’s also very important to regularly review your will, rather than thinking it’s a one-off final document. Things change, new children are born and perhaps old grudges settled. In this case, if the mother had thought to review the will after her husband died, things could have been resolved quite simply.”

“It’s .. very important to regularly review your will, rather than thinking it’s a one-off final document.”

Banks off the hook for charges – but some customers win too

Supreme Court delivers banking charges decision, but not all customers will be disappointed.

The banking industry breathed a sigh of relief this week when the tide finally turned for them and the Supreme Court ruled in their favour in a test case on overdraft charges.

But it could turn out to be in the public interest in the long run. Whilst it’s disappointing for the customers who hoped for refunds, it is good news for customers who don’t run into the red and would otherwise have faced the end of free banking.  It may seem that it’s just a good day for the banks, but the judgement did look at the public interest too.

The fairness of the charges on unauthorised borrowing had been challenged by the consumer watchdog, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) because some customers were being charged as much as £39 for a bounced cheque.

The challenge followed a length review by the OFT, which resulted in them concluding that the charges were unfair.

The banks argued that the OFT had no power to determine whether their charges were fair but lost their case in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.   Things turned for the banks when they appealed to the Supreme Court.

The OFT’s case failed on what amounts to a legal technicality, namely whether overdraft charges form part of the core terms of the contract between bank and customer.

Although the question was whether the OFT had the right to rule on the fairness of the charges, one of the reasons given by the Supreme Court for their decision was the public interest in preserving free banking for those who stay within authorised borrowing limits.   

If the banks had lost, it’s estimated that they would have had to pay back some £20 billion to customers and in the run-up to the hearing had said it would probably mark the end of free banking. 

There are around 1.2million customers who have made a claim against their bank on the same grounds, and their cases were frozen pending the outcome of this case. 

Following the judgement, the general opinion seems to be that it will be hard for any individual to pursue a claim in the county court. Unfortunately the burden of the charges will continue to fall disproportionately on the poorest members of the public who are more likely to have cash flow problems and may be less financially savvy.

The OFT has said that it is disappointed by the judgment and that it will be considering the detail before making a decision on any further action.

Lady Hale of Richmond, a Justice of the Supreme Court, said: “The banks may not be the most popular institutions in the country at present, but that does not mean that their methods of charging for retail banking services are necessarily unfair when reviewed as a whole.”

"good news for customers who don’t run into the red and would otherwise have faced the end of free banking."