fbpx

Highly Regarded Artist's Death Triggers Court Battle Over His Legacy

13th September 2022 By

When people die, it is the duty of the administrators of their estates to gather in their assets and distribute them to those entitled to inherit them. As a case concerning the contents of a deceased artist’s flat showed, however, that task is by no means always a straightforward one.

Following the highly regarded artist’s death, the administrator of his estate – his brother – sought possession of the numerous works of art and other potentially valuable items that belonged to him. Many such artefacts were believed to be contained in a flat the artist had shared with his partner.

After discussions came to nothing and the partner declined access to the flat or to hand over relevant artefacts in his possession, the administrator lodged a claim against him, alleging wrongful interference with goods. Interim orders were twice obtained requiring him to deliver up the artefacts.

The first order was not complied with after the partner claimed to have COVID-19. When solicitors, accompanied by workmen and the police, attended the flat with a view to executing the second order, the partner was adamant that he was not going to allow them in to remove the artefacts. Faced with that impasse, the administrator applied for a finding of contempt of court against him.

When the partner failed to attend the hearing of that application, the High Court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. If that did not succeed in enforcing his attendance, the Court anticipated hearing the application in his absence. If found in contempt, he would face a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine or two years’ imprisonment.

The partner having failed to acknowledge service of the wrongful interference claim, the Court entered a default judgment against him and made a final order requiring him to immediately deliver up any of the artist’s possessions under his power or control. He was also required to provide information concerning the whereabouts of any artefacts that may have been removed from the flat and to pay the administrator’s legal costs, summarily assessed at over £60,000.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...