Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T05:03:38.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The end to testamentary freedom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

Richard Hedlund Open the ORCID record for Richard Hedlund [Opens in a new window]
Richard Hedlund*
Affiliation:
Lincoln Law School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
*
*Author email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Total testamentary freedom in English law came to an end with the passage of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938, since replaced by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Act introduced the family provision rule, which allows disinherited family members to apply to court for a financial award out of the estate. This paper critically re-examines the parliamentary proceedings, held between 1928 and 1938, which debated the merits of testamentary freedom and the need to limit the doctrine by introducing the family provision rule, then already in force in many of the Dominions. There were strong social arguments in favour of redressing unjust disinheritances, pitted against core values of personal freedom and private ownership. The paper will show that there were compelling merits in introducing the family provision rule and the Act has stood the test of time.

Keywords

law of successionunjust disinheritancelegal history
Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 55 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dainow, J ‘Limitations on testamentary freedom in England’ (1940) 25 Cornell Law Review 337Google Scholar at 337.

2 Unger, J ‘The Inheritance Act and the family’ (1943) 6 MLR 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 215.

3 Haskett, T ‘The medieval English court of chancery’ (1996) 14 Law & History Review 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 252; also Jason, P ‘The courts christian in medieval England’ (1996–1997) 37 Catholic Lawyer 339Google Scholar.

4 Lichtenstein, W ‘Date of separation of ecclesiastical and lay jurisdiction in England’ (1909) 3 Illinois Law Review 347Google Scholar at 353.

5 Atkinson, T ‘Brief history of English testamentary jurisdiction’ (1943) 8 Missouri Law Review 107Google Scholar at 107.

6 Pollock, F and Maitland, F History of English Law before the Time of Edward I vol 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924) p 260Google Scholar.

7 Shammas, C ‘English inheritance law and its transfer to the colonies’ (1987) 31 American Journal of Legal History 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 148.

8 Pollock and Maitland, above n 6, pp 330–331; for some examples see Staples, K Kelsey ‘Identifying women proprietors in wills from fifteenth-century London’ (2008) 3 Early Modern Women 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Barton, JL ‘The medieval use’ (1965) 81 LQR 562Google Scholar at 577.

10 Statute of Uses 1535.

11 Some feudal remnants remained until abolished in the Tenures (Abolition) Act 1660.

12 Haertle, EA ‘The history of the probate court’ (1962) 45 Marquette Law Review 546Google Scholar at 547.

13 Court of Probate Act 1857.

14 Helmholz, RH The Spirit of Classical Canon Law (The University of Georgia Press, 2010) p 17Google Scholar; Kemp, E ‘The spirit of the canon law and its application in England’ (2012) 14 Ecclesiastical Law Journal 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 7.

15 Williams, E Vaughan A Treatise on the Law of Executors and Administrators vol 1 (HP & RH Small, 1859) p 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Rationabili Parte (1580) BNC 159 at 159, 73 ER 916 at 916.

17 See La Cloche v La Cloche (1869–71) LR 3 PC 125 at 141 per Lord Westbury.

18 Williams, above n 15, p 2.

19 Cleaver & Ux’ v Spurling (1729) Mosely 179 at 180, 25 ER 336 at 337; Honora Cason v Edward Cason the executor of her husband (1629) Hetley 158 at 158, 124 ER 419 at 420.

20 Hughes v Hughes (1665) Carter 125 at 130–131, 124 ER 867 at 871 per Bridgman CJ.

21 Hodsden v Harridge (1668) 2 WMS Saunders 64 at 67, 85 ER 693 at 698.

22 4 W & M c 2, s 2.

23 Charities Act 1960, s 38(1); see the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888, s 1(1).

24 Croucher, R ‘How free is free? Testamentary freedom and the battle between “family” and “property”’ (2012) 37 Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 9Google Scholar at 11.

25 Locke, J Two Treatises of Government (Laslett, P (ed), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) p 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Facchini, F ‘Complex individualism and legitimacy of absolute property rights’ (2002) 13(1) European Journal of Law and Economics 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 36.

27 Mill, JS Principles of Political Economy (Longmans, Green, & Co, 1909)Google Scholar Bk 2, ch 2, [4].

28 Banks v Goodfellow (1869–70) LR 5 QB 549 at 564 per Cockburn CJ.

29 Ibid.

30 Consider the observations in Mill, above n 27, Bk 2, ch 2, [4].

31 Tate, J ‘Caregiving and the case for testamentary freedom’ (2008) 42 UC Davis Law Review 129Google Scholar at 135.

32 Mill, above n 27, Bk 2, ch 2, [4].

33 Leslie, MB ‘The myth of testamentary freedom’ (1996) 38 Arizona Law Review 235Google Scholar at 236.

34 Re Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch), [2010] 1 WLR 2020 at para [97] per Briggs J; Austen v Graham (1854) 8 Moo PC 493.

35 Brook, J, ‘Testamentary freedom – myth or reality?’ (2018) 82(1) Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 19Google Scholar at 29; see generally the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

36 Banks v Goodfellow, above n 28, at 563 per Cockburn CJ.

37 Consider the Family Protection Act 1895 (New Zealand).

38 Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461 at 485 per Goff LJ; Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, [2018] AC 545 at para [14] per Lord Hughes.

39 Viscount Astor, HL Debate 16 May 1928, vol 71 § 38.

40 Astor, above n 39, § 39.

41 Astor, above n 39, § 44.

42 Astor, above n 39, § 44–45.

43 Astor, above n 39, § 45.

44 Dainow, above n 1, at 346.

45 Viscount Haldane, HL Debate 16 May 1928, vol 71 § 46.

46 Haldane, above n 45, § 47–48.

47 There is much commentary on this point, but consider Rackley, E ‘What a difference difference makes: gendered harms and judicial diversity’ (2008) 15 International Journal of the Legal Profession 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Wexler, S ‘The urge to idealize: Viscount Haldane and the constitution of Canada’ (1983–84) 29 McGill Law Journal 608Google Scholar at 613.

49 Haldane, above n 45, § 47.

50 Lord Buckmaster, HL Debate 16 May 1928, vol 71 § 50.

51 Buckmaster, above n 50, § 50.

52 Baron Hailsham LC, HL Debate 16 May 1928, vol 71 § 53–54.

53 Hailsham, above n 52, § 54.

54 Hailsham, above n 52, § 56.

55 Hailsham, above n 52, § 57.

56 Viscount Cecil, HL Debate 16 May 1928, vol 71 § 58; see the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

57 Cecil, above n 56, § 58.

58 Lord Merrivale, HL Debate 16 May 1928, vol 71 § 60.

59 Viscount Astor, HL Debate 16 May 1928, vol 71 § 61.

60 Spaht, K Shaw ‘Forced heirship changes: the regrettable revolution completed’ (1996) 57 Louisiana Law Review 55Google Scholar at 58.

61 Tate, above n 31, at 160; consider a spouse's right of election in s 5-1.1-A in the New York Estate, Powers & Trusts consolidated laws.

62 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s 3(2).

63 See Max Hastings (Daily Mail, 29 July 2015) www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3178080/MAX-HASTINGS-judges-tell-leave-money-wills.html (last accessed 11 March 2020).

64 ‘The widow's inheritance’ (Daily Mail, 17 May 1928) p 12.

65 Eleanor Rathbone MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1641.

66 Rathbone, above n 65, § 1642.

67 Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 46.

68 In the absence of children, the surviving spouse takes the whole estate.

69 Eleanor Rathbone MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1650.

70 Mary Hamilton MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1667.

71 Hamilton, above n 70, § 1668.

72 James Lovat-Fraser MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1673.

73 John Llewellyn MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1673.

74 Edith Pictor-Turbervill MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1680.

75 Sir Samuel Roberts MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1658.

76 Captain Bourne MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1654.

77 Bourne, above n 76, § 1656.

78 Sir Samuel Roberts MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1660.

79 Roberts, above n 78, § 1659.

80 Frederick Llewellyn-Jones MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1664; Sir Cooper Rawson MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1670.

81 Sir Stafford Cripps Solicitor-General, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1688.

82 Cripps, above n 81, § 1689.

83 Cripps, above n 81, § 1690.

84 Lord Chancellor, HL Debate 3 March 1931, vol 80 § 204.

85 Lord Buckmaster, HL Debate 3 March 1931, vol 80 § 206; Lord Danesfort, HL Debate 3 March 1931, vol 80 § 210.

86 Lord Chancellor, HL Debate 3 March 1931, vol 80 § 212.

87 Report from the Joint Committee on the Wills and Intestacies (Family Maintenance) Bill, 17 June 1931.

88 Report, above n 87, [3].

89 Report, above n 87, [6].

90 Report, above n 87, [7].

91 E Hubback ‘The Inheritance Bill’ (The Times, 26 April 1934) p 10.

92 See the Old-Age Pensions Act 1908; Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925; National Insurance Act 1911.

93 HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2029.

94 Frederick Macquisten MP, HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2045.

95 HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2071.

96 Family Law Reform Act 1987, s 19.

97 Sir Annesley Somerville, HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2071.

98 Frederick Macquisten MP, HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2072.

99 Eleanor Rathbone MP, HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2075–2076.

100 HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2084.

101 Stanley Holmes MP, HC Debate 5 November 1937, vol 328 § 1292.

102 Eleanor Rathbone MP, HC Debate 5 November 1937, vol 328 § 1309–1310.

103 Alan Dower MP, HC Debate 5 November 1937, vol 328 § 1305.

104 Sir George Davies MP, HC Debate 5 November 1937, vol 328 § 1324–1325.

105 Dower, above n 103, § 1302.

106 Consider Patrick Spens MP, HC Debate 5 November 1937, vol 328 § 1318.

107 Dower, above n 103, § 1302.

108 Arthur Heneage MP, HC Debate 5 November 1937, vol 328 § 1297.

109 Solicitor-General, Report of Standing Committee A, 23 March 1937, col 31.

110 ‘MPs unite to frustrate unjust wills’ (Daily Mail, 30 April 1938) p 11.

111 Eleanor Rathbone MP ‘When this Bill becomes law you can't disinherit your family’ (Daily Mail, 10 May 1938) p 10.

112 Lord Russell of Killowen, HL Debate 23 June 1938, vol 110 § 246.

113 Russell, above n 112, § 247.

114 Frederick Macquisten MP, HC Debate, 27 April 1934, vol 288 § 2045.

115 ‘Parliament's blunder’ (Daily Mail, 18 July 1938) p 4.

116 ECHR, Protocol 1, Art 1.

117 Marckx v Belgium (1979–80) 2 EHRR 330 para [63].

118 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s 3.

119 Consider Blackstone, W Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar Bk 2, ch 23.

120 Gold, J ‘Freedom of testation’ (1938) 1 MLR 296Google Scholar at 297.

121 Wedgwood, J The Economics of Inheritance (Pelican, 1939) p 13Google Scholar.

122 Champlin, E Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills, 200 BC–AD 250 (University of California Press, 1991) p 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123 Consider O'Neall v Farr, 30 SCL 80 (1844), 83–84 (South Carolina).

124 James Lovat-Fraser MP, HC Debate 20 February 1931, vol 248 § 1673.

125 Ilott, above n 38.

126 Wellesley v Earl Cowley [2019] EWHC 11 (Ch).

127 Ubbi v Ubbi [2018] EWHC 1396 (Ch).

128 Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 46(1).

129 Law Commission Making a Will (Consultation Paper 231) 1.1.

130 Patrick Spens MP, HC Debate 5 November 1937, vol 328 § 1312.

131 Wedgwood, above n 121, p 110.

132 Musa v Holliday [2012] EWCA Civ 1268 para [27] per Sir Nicholas Wall.

133 Cownie, F and Bradney, A ‘Divided justice, different voices: inheritance and family provision’ (2003) 23 LS 566Google Scholar at 582.

134 Gold, above n 120, at 301.

135 Ilott, above n 38, para [58] per Lady Hale.

136 Cownie and Bradney, above n 133, at 571.

137 Sloan, B ‘Testamentary freedom reaffirmed in the Supreme Court’ (2017) 76 CLJ 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 502.

138 Ilott, above n 38, para [53] per Lady Hale.

139 Ilott, above n 38, para [57] per Lady Hale.