In the Estate of Plant. Wild v Plant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1926 |
| Year | 1926 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
40 cases
-
Henry Dominic Chicheley Thornton and Others v Mary Virginia Chicheley Woodhouse and Another
...to prove the Will of which they are appointed and cannot be criticised for having done so (see Boughton v Knight (1873) LR 3 P&D 64 and Wild v Plant [1926] P 139). Lucy's case 301 Mr Macpherson submitted that: (a) the Court has a statutory power to remove trustees under section 50 of the Ad......
-
Marley v Rawlings (No 2)
... ... and the respondents should be paid out of the late Mr Rawlings's estate, or, in the alternative, that those costs should be ordered to be paid by ... ...
-
Shovelar and Others v Lane and Others
...into operation." Costs were in fact ordered to be paid by the losing plaintiff. 34 The rule was further considered in Re: Plant dec'd [1926] P. 139 where Scrutton L.J. added this salutary warning at p. 152: "I should be reluctant to do anything to create the idea that unsuccessful litigant......
-
Kostic v Chaplin and Others
...event: see page 98. 16 I should also refer to two cases in the Court of Appeal subsequent to Spiers v English, namely Re Plant deceased [1926] P 139 and Re Cutliffe's Estate [1959] P 6. 17 The position in Re Plant was one of some procedural complexity, and the decision was mainly concerned ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Table of Cases
...458 (May) 19 PJSC Aeroflot – Russian Airlines v Leeds [2018] EWHC 1735 (Ch), [2018] 4 Costs LR 775 225 Plant (Deceased), Re; Wild v Plant [1926] P 139, 95 LJP 87, 135 LT 238, CA 226 Powell v Osborne [1993] 1 FLR 1001, [1993] 1 FCR 797, [1993] Fam Law 287, CA 173 Powell v Powell (1866) LR 1 ......
-
Procedure
...or fraud are alleged but the allegations fail. However, in this case a strong case has to be made out ([29]–31]) (see Re Plant (Deceased) [1926] P 139), but this principle is limited in extent ([33]) (see Re Cunliffe’s Estate [1959] P 6). This principle was followed in Wharton v Bancroft an......