Re Jennery, deceased ; Jennery v Jennery
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1121-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 21 November 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1121-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: Mr. Justice Stamp)
Lord Justice Davies
and
Lord Justice Russell
In the Matter of Ernest Jack Jennery deceased
In the Matter of the Inheritance (Family Provision). Act 1938
Mr. J. HAMES (instructed by Messrs. Hamlins, Granmer & Hamlin) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
The Respondent the First Defendant did not appear and was not represented.
The Respondent the Second Defendant (Mrs. S.A. Ashby) appeared in person.
(Without calling upon the Respondent)
I will ask Lord Justice Russell to give the first Judgment.
This case contains, in my view, really quite a short point. The facts are briefly these. A testator, Mr. Jennery, died on the 2nd October, 1961, and by his will, of 1954, he gave all his property to his two daughters in equal shares. He appointed executors, but they renounced. No stop was taken by way of grant of letters of administration until the 14th February, 1963, when the two beneficiaries were given a grant of letters with will annexed.
The testator left a widow, with whom he had not been living for, I take it, a good many years. He also left an estate which, at the time of the present proceedings, was valued at nearly £1,100, mainly consisting of a freehold cottage valued at £1,000 - in which, I assume, the testator had been living, but I do not know, and in which the two beneficiaries, his daughters, continued to live, and in which one of them, a Mrs. Ashby, with her family, still lives, her sister having subsequently married and gone to live elsewhere.
On behalf of the widow, on the 1st March, 1963, an application was made under the inheritance (Family Provision) Act for reasonable provision: and an order (which I shall for the moment state very shortly) was made in her favor - the parties to the proceedings being the two sisters, who were not only the sole personal representatives but also the sole beneficiaries under the Will as it stood - for provision to the tune of £600, by way of a lump sum. I will come to the wording of the order in a moment.
If I may state briefly what has happened since that order was made, the sisters - certainly the sister who is living in the cottage – have sat very tight, and the result is that the widow has not had a penny of her £600, which of course would come to her in priority to any claim by the two daughters.
After some years' ineffective endeavor, instead of starting proceedings against the two administrators (as one would expect in the normal way) to administer the estate - in which Proceedings with reasonable rapidity it could be made quite sure that the sister who is in the cottage would be forced out and the property would be realized and if necessary the sisters removed from the administrators' saddle - it occurred to the advisers, or, as Mr. Hames frankly stated, it occurred to him when he was asked to advise on behalf of the widow, that a short out might be taken, based on the order made by Mr. Justice Cross under the inheritance (Family Provision) Act, of getting a four day order for payment. It was hoped and thought that the sisters, the administratrices, might be forced, under threat of imprisonment for contempt of court, into taking such steps as were necessary in order to bring the money home to the widow.
So far as the one sister who is not living in the cottage is concerned, of course it would be difficult to do anything against her that did not result, if the other sister remained obstinate, in administration proceedings, which were sought to be avoided, because she would not be able to get the resident Sister out or the property sold, if the resident sister refused to co-operate, without administration proceedings. However, there it is; and Mr. Justice Stamp, when he was applied to by notice of motion for a four-day order based on the order of Mr. Justice Cross, declined it. He held that this was not, in any relevant sense of the word, an order for payment of money.
I think it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lansforsakringar Bank AB v Wood & Others
...a pecuniary legacy cannot be attached by way of a garnishee order. 12 In more recent times the Court of Appeal in Re Jennery (deceased) [1967] Ch 280 had to consider an application by a widow in whose favour an order for a lump sum payment under what was then the 1938 Inheritance Act had be......
-
Colin Johnston v Natalie Elsie Wackett (in her capacity as executrix of the estate of Lord Sidney Albert Johnston deceased)
...when a lump sum order is made, is treated as a legatee under the will and thus as a beneficiary of the estate. See Re Jennery (deceased) [1967] Ch 280 at 11 The rule applies even where the debt was statute barred at the time of the testator's death: In Re Akerman [1891] 3 Ch 212 at 221. A......
-
Ye Hong Ying v Chan Lup Ying
...required to pay the periodic payment of $6,000 from 1st February 1999 to date. Consequential Order 62. In Jennery v. Jennery and Another [1967] 1 Ch.280, it was held by the English Court of Appeal that "... that an order made under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938, was not an or......