LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

MODULE TITLE: LAW OF SUCCESSION

MODULE CODE: 5303LAWSQ

SEMESTER NUMBER 2, 2023 Duration: 24 Hours

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

This examination was released at 10am on the 29th June and must be
completed and submitted by 10am on the 30th June.

The answer sheet must be uploaded as a word document to Canvas.

This online examination is subject to all the normal rules and provisions
relating to academic misconduct.

There are 2 Sections A and B and 10 Questions on this paper.

Candidates are to answer 10 questions on the exam paper. Please answer
All of the questions on the exam paper from SECTIONS A and B.

SECTION A - Question 1 is a problem question is worth 70 marks and you

must answer this in full. The maximum word count is 1,500.

SECTION B - Questions 2 – 10 are Multiple choice questions and you must

answer All of these questions. You must indicate for each question the letter
chosen for your answer. If you have given more than one letter for a question
then your first answer alphabetically will be taken as your answer. The
multiple choice questions total 30 marks and the marks for each question are
as indicated on the paper.
OSCOLA referencing (footnotes) and bibliographies are not required.

Deadline: 10am 30th June 2023 Via Canvas assignment tab.

Your answers to the questions must be typed into a single word document.
You must add your 6 digit student number to the header of this document.
You must also include your 6 digit student number in BOTH the file name and
submission title (when you upload it to Canvas).

Submission of this assignment serves as acknowledgement that you have

read and understood the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy (available
at https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/~/media/staff-intranet/academic-registry/files/policy-
page/academic-misconduct-policy.pdf?la=en).

This paper consists of 6 pages

Page 1
SECTION A

Mel, having recently reached, her 60 th birthday, is feeling depressed at the

thought of being old enough to qualify for her free bus pass and is starting to
feel like life is passing her by. Mel starts to think she needs to execute her will
to put matters in order.

Would expect to see an introduction on what is required to make a valid will -

Capacity, Intention and Formalities under S9 Wills Act 1837. Will doesn’t have
to be professionally drafted so long as these elements are present.

Mel has always been good as doing things herself and feels that she doesn’t
want to waste money paying a Lawyer to draft her will for her and therefore
decides to draft and execute her own will. To this end, she goggles ’how to
draft your own Will’. Mel spent an hour looking at various Youtube videos on
this and then felt confident that she knew what she was doing. The next day
Mel decides to draft her will. As she is an amateur artist and rather eccentric,
she decides it would be fun to write her will on the back of one of her
paintings. She begins with the phrase ‘This is the only will and testament of
me, Mel Pepperpot’.

Mel writes her will on the back of painting; wills do not have to be written on
any particular material (eggshell – Hodson v Barnes and back of a piece of
cardboard – In Estate of Murray).

When it is completed, Mel attempts to sign her will at the foot but then realises
that she has already signed the painting so thinks she doesn’t need to do it
again.

Is the will valid? The Will doesn’t seem to be signed by Mel. Is there any
extrinsic evidence to the effect that Mel intended this word to represent her
signature? Wood v Smith She begins the will in a similar fashion to Percy
Winterbone in Wood v Smith (hadn’t been signed by testator but indicated
name at top = signature). However, unlike Percy, she does not write a new
signature. Did she intend her name previously written on the painting to be
her signature? Seems to be likely as it says she thought this would suffice.
Not necessary to be on the bottom of the will (AJA ’82). Weatherhill v
Pearce – ok if all in one operation - is this applicable here?

Mel then decides to invite her 2 friends Jane Mooks and Wendy Harper over
for drinks and to ask them to witness the will. Mel’s cocktails are legendary as
Page 2
being the best and the most alcoholic as Mel worked for a while as a waitress
in a cocktail bar when she was younger, so both her friends readily agree.
After they have spent most of the evening chatting and drinking cocktails, ,
Students may mention that he could have been drunk while making his will
which could affect his decision making powers – Chana v Chana Mel then
produces the will, but as she does so the doorbell rings as the pizza delivery
man has arrived and Jane goes off to answer it. Wendy signs and witnesses
the will on the back of the painting giving her full name and address. When
Jane returns she witnesses the will, signing the same ‘J Mooks’. Here there
appears to be a potential issue with the formalities under S9 Wills Act 1837 -
In writing, signed by testator (or at her direction), signature gives effect to the
will and the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the
presence of 2 or more witnesses present at the same time.
However if this is the case then Mel wrote her name before the witnesses
arrived as she had previously signed the painting if the name at the painting is
to be taken as her signature! Therefore, we need to discuss if this name was
‘acknowledged’ in presence of both witnesses at the same time but if not then
it doesn’t comply with the formalities of S9 that he signed or acknowledged in
the presence of both witnesses present at the same time and then he
watched both of the witnesses sign.

The signature of the testator must be either written or acknowledged by him

in the actual visual presence of both witnesses together (and there must be
at least two witnesses) before either of them attests and signs the will or
acknowledges his signature on it.
Jane went to answer the door to the delivery pizza man, so arguably even if
the signature was acknowledged, she did not have line of sight. Re Colling
[1972] 1 WLR 1440 If, on the other hand, a witness leaves the room before
the testator completes his intended signature, or his acknowledgement of his
earlier signature, the requirements of section 9 are not satisfied.
Brown v Skirrow [1902] In this case, the testatrix took her will to the local
grocer’s in order to sign it and have her signature witnessed. She duly signed
the will, and was observed doing so by the shop assistant. While she signed
the will, the shop manager was engaged with a commercial traveller who was
standing between the shop manager and the testatrix. At that moment, the
shop manager did not know what the testatrix was doing; it was only later that
he was asked to sign the will as a witness.
The court held that the will had not been properly witnessed. The shop
manager did not and could not see the testatrix sign; and, in any case, he was
not mentally present at the time the will was signed because he was not
conscious of what the testatrix was doing.
The witnesses did comment that Mel had not been herself lately as she
had been drinking more and more and was depressed at the thought of
getting old. Mel’s friends were extremely surprised to note that she was
leaving the majority of her estate to the ‘Temperance Society’
especially as she always used to say to them both ‘I can’t understand
anyone who chooses not to drink alcohol as alcohol always makes my
little Soirees so much more fun darlings’. This might suggest an issue
with Mel’s Capacity. Would expect to see a discussion of Banks v

Page 3
 Goodfellow and the strands of the test that need to be satisfied to show
testamentary capacity. Go through requirements of Banks v
Goodfellow.

o 1 .Could Mel understand what it is to make a will ie the will

o making process.

o 2. Could Mel understand what she has to dispose of under such

a document? ie rough idea of her estate

o 3.Could she weigh the claims of family and friends on her

estate?’

ie could she fully consider those whom she might want to benefit and
those whom he might want to reject and make a decision whether or
not to include them in/exclude them from her will including her
husband’s
claims

Broughten v Knight – bring to mind persons who are fitting objects of

T’s bounty.

Should be no insane delusions. No evidence of this.

o And

o Will should be rational fair and just Re Loxston. This will not
rational fair or just.

The fact that Mel has left her husband nothing and has left her estate to a
society that doesn’t allow alcohol which is against her lifestyle means she
is unable to weigh her husband’s claims on her estate which doesn’t
satisfy the 3rd test in B –v –G. If Mel is unable to understand that she is
married and therefore her husband no longer merits consideration as a
potential beneficiary, the argument is that Mel lacks testamentary
capacity. Could however argue that they had separated and this was why
she hadn’t wanted to consider him

This is similar to the case of Battan-Singh –v- Amirchand [1948] 1 All E

R 152 a case in which the testator left his estate to his creditors saying
that he had no living relatives; in fact, he had three nephews of whom, on
the evidence, he was very fond. Also Sharp v Adams estate left to
creditors, not daughters with whom had good relationship. Will was not
rational.

Need to satisfy 4th strand of Banks v Goodfellow test – that the will should
appear rational, fair and just. Re Loxston – made a will leaving everything to
her cleaner and one or 2 cousins and the claim was upheld as Miss Loxston
was not able to focus on persons she may wish to benefit and arrive at a

Page 4
rational decision. The limited number of beneficiaries was in stark contrast to
her previous will. In Sharp v Adams the Testator appeared rational but didn’t
want to leave anything to his 2 daughters even though on good terms with
them and Solicitors said that Banks v Goodfellow was satisfied. The CA on
the other hand, held that this 4th test had not been complied with as the will
did not appear rational as he was on good terms with his daughters and he
had left his estate to employees. In Key v Key the courts held that Mr Key in
the weeks following his wife’s death he could not properly weigh up the claims
to which he ought to give effect and to make a rational decision on those
claims. In Mel’s case the will does not appear rational as mothing left to her
husband and all to the Temperance society. Even if she hadn’t wanted to
leave anything to her separated husband, it is very irrational that she would
leave her estate to a society whose values she disagreed on.

Students may mention the need for Intention and Knowledge and Approval –
but there is nothing here to suggest that Mel did not have knowledge and
approval as she wrote the will himself. Also there is no suggestion of undue
influence here

Mel has now died and her spouse John who had separated from Mel last year
due to her drinking but not divorced her, seeks your advice as to the validity of
the will.

If the Will is held to be valid, does John have a right to make a claim under
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 and if so, what
would the courts take into account in deciding a claim? Is claim in time ie
within 6 months from the grant? Yes it is here.
State category of applicant - Spouse of the deceased
Grounds for application s2- disposition of deceased’s estate did not make
reasonable financial provision for applicant
Two different standards surviving spouse and maintenance – surviving
spouse one applies here.
s3 factors to be applied twice by court.
a) To decide if dispositions made reasonable financial provision
b) If not to decide how much provision to make
Additional factors for particular type of applicant – length of marriage, any
contribution to the welfare of the family etc with case law

Page 5
SECTION B

2. Frederik has recently died aged 59, intestate. He left a net estate valued at
£650,000. He is survived by the following relatives and no others:

i) Wife Gertrude
ii) daughter Juliet (26)
iii) grandchildren Lenny 6 and Patrick 13 [they are the children of
Frederik’s deceased daughter Selina who died in 2020.
iv) sister Hilda (63).

Who of the above would have a vested interest in Frederik’s estate?

a) Gertrude and Hilda

b) Gertrude and Juliet

c) Gertrude

d) Gertrude, Juliet, Lenny and Patrick

[3 marks]

3. Gina has just died intestate, survived by her husband Tommy and no other
relatives. They were married in 1999 but have lived apart since 2004.They
were never legally separated or divorced. Gina’s net estate is valued at
£470,000.

Which one of the following statements is correct?

a) Tommy is only entitled to the

first £270,000 from Gina’s
estate

b) Tommy is not entitled to any

of Gina’s estate

c) Tommy is only entitled to a life

interest in Gina’s estate

d) Tommy is entitled to all of Gina’s

Page 6
 estate [3 marks]

4. Marilyn has recently died. She made a home-made will which contained
the following legacy:- “I give a legacy of £55,000 to my friend Dawn”. Marilyn
fell out with Dawn before she died and struck the legacy out. The alteration is
unattested.

Which one of the following statements is correct?

a) Dawn receives £55,000.

b) Dawn does not receive any money

from this legacy.

c) The will is invalid.

d) The will is valid but the legacy fails

[3 marks]

5. Franny died recently. He left a will, which he made in 2002, by which he left
all his estate to his nephew Rick. Franny married Janice in 2009. Franny had
not made another will since his last in 2002.

Which one of the following statements is correct?

a) Franny’s will is still valid

and Rick is entitled to
all his estate.

b) Franny’s will is still valid but

the gift to Rick will now go to Janice.

c) Franny’s will is not valid

and the rules of Intestacy will apply.

d) Franny’s will is not valid and any

other will prior to 2002 will be the
valid will.

Page 7
 [3 marks]

6. Declan is executing his will at home. His neighbour PJ and Declan’s

daughter Siobhan witness the will in accordance with S9 Wills Act
1837. The will contains no reference to PJ but there is a legacy of
£170,000 to Siobhan.

Which one of the following statements is correct?

a) The will is valid

b) The will is invalid
c) The will is valid but Siobhan is not entitled to her legacy

[3 marks]

7. Sam sets up a lifetime trust in favour of his cousins and puts £450,000
into it. Calculate the IHT liability to be paid on setting up the trusts on
the basis that Sam has his full Nil Rate Band and hasn’t made any
other lifetime gifts.

Which of the following statements is correct?

a) £50,000
b) £25,000
c) £23,800
d) £47,600
[4 marks]

8. Which of the following are not entitled to make a claim under the
Inheritance Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975?

a) Civil Partner

b) A person who was living with the deceased for over 2 years as
husband and wife but wasn’t being maintained by them.

c) A person who was living with the deceased for under 2 years as
husband and wife but wasn’t being maintained by them.

d) An Adult child of the deceased

Page 8
 [4 marks]

9. Dan a bachelor dies in April 2023 and leaves a death estate of £870,000
(included in that figure is a property worth 230,000) all to his niece. Calculate
the IHT liability to be paid on the death estate on the basis that Dan made one
lifetime gift of £150,000 in January 2021.

Which one of the following is correct?

a) £137,800
b) £205,600
c) £275,600
d) £126,000 [4 marks]

10. Personal representatives are not liable to claimants under The

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 if, which one of
the following statements is correct?

a) they do not distribute the estate until 6 months after the date of death

b) they do not distribute the estate until 6 months after the grant has been
made

c) they distribute the estate in the belief that any claim will be
unsuccessful

d) they distribute the estate within 6 months of the grant

[3 marks]

Page 9