Yep, McDonald v Norris, where the conduct of both the applicant and the testator was taken into account. Also the KM v CF case (where the testator left 11 surviving children and two made s 117 applications). And DS v KM (the daughter was left a useless enough piece of land. She suffered from diabetes and depression and was a low skilled worker ie should have gotten more. Also, CW v LW. In B v S, the court did not consider the legislation extended to the children's children.
I reckon a problem question could refer to acts during life which occured in these cases eg. in KM v CF, the mother used to stay with one of the applicants in England and she suffered financial difficulties when she left etc. and gifts received already during life -paid for education, gave money towards buying house etc. On Oct 14, 2:48 pm, the gaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a 'mcDonald' case isn't there? Re GM as well and there's > another one about the ct being slow to step in in a s117 situation > where the relationship was a caring and cordial one. > Hoping for 2 q's on testacy/intestacy! > > On Oct 14, 3:43 pm, billybob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Anybody sure of the precise caselaw needed to answer a problem on this > > issue. > > > Essentially, after TM v TAM tests > > and Re IAC, deceased principals > > > what cases best illustrate the proper prov issue. Or all of them?? > > > Much appreciated.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
