Wickham v Riley (2020) EWHC 3711 (Fam): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 14:28, 11 January 2022

Capacity to discontinue proceedings (1) When the claimant served notice of discontinuance of this Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim he had capacity to do so, and was not subject to duress or undue influence, so the notice was effective. (2) The court gave permission to issue a second set of proceedings notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period (one factor being that the decision to discontinue was not a decision taken by a commercial entity after careful consideration but was the almost-certainly unwise decision of a vulnerable just-18 year old under the influence of and on the advice of his mother who was his primary carer).

Publication

Published on Bailii on 30/1/21.

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Other capacity cases🔍

Date: 25/11/20🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Judge(s):

Williams🔍

Parties:

Alexander Wickham🔍
William Riley🔍
Robert Sibley🔍
Matthew Wickham🔍
Penny-Ann Wickham🔍
Lisa Wickham🔍

Citation number(s):

[2020] EWHC 3711 (Fam)^B

What links here:

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Published: 30/1/21 22:28

Cached: 2025-06-24 23:30:28

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |Parties=Alexander Wickham, William Riley, Robert Sibley, Matthew Wickham, Penny-Ann Wickham, Lisa Wickham
 |Sentence=Capacity to discontinue proceedings
-|Summary=(1) When the claimant served notice of discontinuance of this [[Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975]] claim he had capacity to do so, and was not subject to duress or undue influence, so the notice was effective. (2) The court gave permission to issue a second set of proceedings notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period (one factor being that the decision to discontinue was not a decision taken by a commercial entity after careful consideration but was the almost-certainly unwise decision of a vulnerable just 18 year old under the influence of and on the advice of his mother who was his primary carer).
+|Summary=(1) When the claimant served notice of discontinuance of this [[Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975]] claim he had capacity to do so, and was not subject to duress or undue influence, so the notice was effective. (2) The court gave permission to issue a second set of proceedings notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period (one factor being that the decision to discontinue was not a decision taken by a commercial entity after careful consideration but was the almost-certainly unwise decision of a vulnerable just-18 year old under the influence of and on the advice of his mother who was his primary carer).
 |Detail===Publication==
 Published on Bailii on 30/1/21.