The Brewery Shares, the Dead Child and the Sister's Husband

Execution. Section 9 Wills Act 1837 requires the will to be in writing, signed by the testator (or by someone in his presence and by his direction), with the testator intending by the signature to give effect to the will, and the signature made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, each of whom then attests and signs. The facts indicate Raymond and the neighbour were both present together and both signed, so the formalities appear satisfied. Obtain the original will, the attestation clause, and statements from the witnesses.

Capacity and knowledge and approval. Apply Banks v Goodfellow: did Arthur understand the nature of the act, the extent of his property, and the claims of those he ought to consider? There is no medical evidence of incapacity in the facts, but the file should record Arthur's age, health and whether he gave instructions alone. No presumption of undue influence arises between a brother and sister; it would have to be proved.

The witness's spouse - the trap in this question. Section 15 Wills Act 1837 voids a gift to an attesting witness or to the spouse of an attesting witness. But s.15 was amended by s.1 Wills Act 1968 so that the spouse of a witness is no longer disqualified; only the witness himself or herself is. Raymond is the witness, and he is not a beneficiary. Joan's £50,000 gift therefore stands. Had Joan herself signed as a witness, her gift would have been void and the £50,000 would have fallen into residue.

Practical point. Confirm that no other beneficiary, and no spouse of a beneficiary, attested the will, and confirm that the neighbour has no interest in the estate.

The brewery shares - ademption. A specific gift of shares adeems where the testator no longer owns the subject matter at death. Here the shares were compulsorily acquired in 2022 and the proceeds were paid into Arthur's current account and mixed with his own money. A share is not the same property as a bank balance, and there is no statutory or will provision substituting the proceeds (contrast the position where a will contains a specific provision dealing with takeover proceeds, or where land is compulsorily purchased and a statutory reinvestment provision applies). Peter therefore takes nothing, and the £62,000 falls into residue - where it already sits within the £600,000 figure. Note that if Arthur had retained identifiable loan notes or new shares issued in exchange, the analysis would need revisiting.

Mark's death - s.33 Wills Act 1837. A gift to a child of the testator who dies before the testator, leaving issue living at the testator's death, takes effect as a gift to that issue, unless a contrary intention appears. Section 33 applies to a class gift of residue to 'my children' and operates to save the gift from lapse. Mark's half share therefore passes to Ellie and Tom in equal shares, per stirpes, not per capita. They take as substitute beneficiaries, so Tom's minority is a practical (not a distributional) issue - his share will be held on the statutory trusts or by trustees until 18.

Distribution.

• Net estate: £600,000
• Joan: £50,000
• Residue: £550,000, divided equally between David and Mark's half share
• David: £275,000
• Mark's half share of £275,000 divided equally between Ellie and Tom: £137,500 each
• Peter: nil (ademption); the £62,000 is inside the residue as calculated above.

Checks. Confirm the £600,000 is net of debts, funeral and administration costs and that no inheritance tax adjustment is required; if it is gross, the tax must be deducted before the calculation is finalised, and the burden of tax on the £50,000 and the residue must be allocated.

Sandra. A cohabitant qualifies under s.1(1)(ba) 1975 Act where the deceased and the applicant lived in the same household as husband and wife (or civil partners) throughout the period of two years ending immediately before the death. Twelve years' cohabitation satisfies the two-year condition, subject to proof of the shared household. She must show the will (or intestacy) makes no reasonable financial provision for her - the test for a cohabitant is what is reasonable for maintenance, which is narrower than the spouse standard, although the court will weigh the length and nature of the relationship and her contribution.

Section 3 factors: her financial resources and needs now and in the future; Arthur's obligations towards her; the size and nature of the estate; any physical or mental disability; and the interests of other beneficiaries, including the children and grandchildren. The estate is substantial (£600,000 with a £410,000 house) and she has no provision - a claim is realistic.

The procedural trap. Under s.4 the application must be made within six months of the date on which representation is first taken out. That deadline is not automatically extendable: after it expires, she needs the court's permission, which is granted on the Re Salmon principles (the length of delay, negotiations, prejudice to beneficiaries, and the strength of the claim). The most important practical step is therefore to diarise the grant and issue within six months if negotiation has not settled the matter.

David's claim about the house. A promise that 'the house will be yours', relied on by giving up his own home and providing care, is the classic proprietary estoppel pattern: assurance, reliance, detriment. The remedy is the minimum equity necessary to do justice - which may be the house, a life interest, or a money sum, and need not match the promise. There is no requirement for a written declaration of trust or for compliance with s.2 LP(MP)A 1989, because constructive trusts and estoppel are carved out by s.53(2) LPA 1925 and s.2(5) respectively. Warn David that (a) his half share of residue (£275,000) may be treated as partial satisfaction of the equity, (b) the administrator will owe a duty to the other beneficiaries and may resist, and (c) evidence from neighbours, carers and the solicitor who took instructions is critical. Advise on both claims together with Sandra's - they compete for the same asset and the administrator should not distribute until both are resolved.