Bethel Chambers LLC

"STEP qualified lawyer faces robust cross-examination and found to be a convincing witness in a will dispute case" ought to be the headlines of this case. https://lnkd.in/gAprdvtQ Kudos to Mrs. Webb, the solicitor in the case, for her conduct of her case for her long-time client, Ms. Carry, such that the English High Court found that Ms. Carry had sufficient mental capacity to destroy her will at her deathbed which left her intestate. Some pointers from the judgment when it comes to will preparation and will writing: 1. Is taking a video of the testatrix mandatory for defensive practice? In this case, a very detailed attendance note was sufficient. But the note did cover important things like checking if the testatrix knew who the solicitor was. 2. For deathbed wills and mental capacity issues, the golden rule must be at the top of any will-maker's thoughts. Get a doctor to determine mental capacity before taking instructions. In this case, the testatrix was under heavy pain medication which caused her to at some point during the instruction giving, be unable to continue leaving her last will unsigned. This was a point that was clawed onto by the barrister cross-examining the solicitor. 3. However, the solicitor had several years of solicitor-client relationship with the decease and when she said 'it was the same old Carry' I believe that carried much weight. What a luxury to be able to fall back on such history to give weight to the evidence that you are depending on! In many cases, the person preparing the will probably only see the person for one or two occasions? As I was telling someone yesterday, a Will is not a form to be filled up, there is law determining the veracity of taking instructions. A rushed will or a will that is done by someone who has little experience could lead to the will (or in this case the destruction of the will) be successfully challenged in court.

Jakarta! See you on Friday! Really excited that Alzheimer's Indonesia has started Indonesia's first ALZI Academy & Healthy Aging Centre in Indonesia in Atma Jaya Universitas Katolik Indonesi. This is a great big step forward in advancing knowledge and expertise in Dementia policy, Dementia Care, and Dementia Law in Indonesia! At the same time, going to continue to talk about STEP's GRP and our mission in journeying alongside jurisdictions that still don't have laws for advance planning for loss of mental capacity. If you're interested in knowing more about how you can come alongside ALZI in creating a dementia-inclusive Indonesia, do consider coming to this launch event! Link here: https://lnkd.in/gHfmu_P4 DY Suharya Emily Ong Alzheimer's Disease International Emily Deane, TEP Emma Yeats Kelly Greig

Taipei & Bueno Aires at the same time - speaking about the GRP Project on LPAs in every jurisdiction in the world. So last week in Taiwan, I spent the first evening speaking to a very learned group of academics, judges, lawyers, and government servants about their thoughts on STEP's GRP (Global Representative Power) Project. Hearing their views and questions on whether this would work was very thought-provoking. About the reciprocal recognition of GRP documents, the question is whether we could do it first by region, e.g. all of Europe having reciprocal recognition, all of the Caribbean, all of ASEAN - these were my thoughts exactly, and something that I had been speaking to about with the Dementia and Alzheimer's advocates from @Alzhemier's Disease International and other STEP chairs over the past 1 year. We also spoke on the need for standards and safeguarding against financial abuse as well as the need to engage and work with major stakeholders, especially the banks in respective jurisdictions. We definitely need all professionals to be Dementia Capable and understanding of the rights of people living with dementia, their decision-makers, and caregivers. Thanks to zoom, I could be in Taipei while they were all, on literally the other side of the world in Buenos Aires. The presentation was led by STEP's Technical Counsel and Head of Government Policy Emily Deane, TEP who was really doing a great job meeting with the other delegates at the @International Guardianship Network Global Conference. I'm looking to continue this discussion in Jakarta on 20th September at the launch of Indonesia's first Dementia Focused Center with the very inspirational DY Suharya who founded the Alzheimer's Association in Indonesia and wants to see GRPs in Indonesia too! And then...Xi'An for the Asia-Pacific ADI Regional Conference! Paola Barbarino Mark Walley, CDir Kelly Greig Brian Walters Bryan Mitchell Emily Ong Emma Yeats Ben Bell Ashwarya Shukla Amanda Lashley Theo Burrows Anthony Partridge Ian Lebane https://lnkd.in/guFH5VBK 

A nephew was given a 'blank cheque' LPA by his aunt, who trusted him to do the right thing. I guess the temptation was too much for the Nephew. Do an LPA 2 today where you can put in restrictions and conditions in your LPA to prevent your donee from being tempted.

When I first started of family practice in 2010, the understanding of a 'short and childless' marriage, is that division would largely follow the 'direct financial contributions' of the parties a per the case of 'Ong Samuel' as I am discussing below. However, with the years going by, and since ANJ v ANK [2015], I've noticed this about the trends of the way assets are divided: 1. The party with more assets in their sole name may find themselves transferring their assets to the party with lesser assets because of the 'lesser assets' party's indirect contribution. 2. It doesn't matter if you are the husband or the wife in the relationship. Even if you are the wife who had worked hard during the course of the marriage, and taken care of the children, if the husband (who is unemployed and doing odd jobs towards the end of the marriage) can show that they had done their bit for 'indirect contribution' early in the marriage when the children are still young, the wife may find herself having some of her assets being transferred to the husband if there is no matrimonial home and they are on rental. 3. This is because if 'indirect contribution' is 50/50 at first instance and even if the weightage is adjusted, in the end, it is probably near impossible for any party to get 90% for indirect contributions, (as opposed to 90% of direct financial contribution which is possible), it would mean that if the wife had 90% of direct financial contribution, she would also have to score either 90% of the indirect contribution, or to persuade the court to assign a different weightage - but it would unlikely for her to have 90%. 4. The question is with therapeutic justice and how the aim is not to discredit the other party. Since there is no concept of 'indirect dis-contribution' (because something like this would be criticizing the other party which is un-TJ) it would mean that this spouse who had probably completely neglected the family for the last decade of the long marriage will find themselves walking away with quite a bit. The question that I wonder if too much emphasis has been placed on the indirection contributions at the start of the marriage because a marriage is not just how it starts, but also how it ends. The reasons why it is going to an end could be just as important as how it starts. Considering the ability of 'indirect contribution' may mean that these would happen going forward: a. People might start to divorce earlier before the years and indirect contribution builds up, rather than hanging out there trying to make the marriage work. b. More martial agreements, in the form of pre-nuptial agreements, post-nuptial agreements will be signed in a hope to have assets excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets.

What is the 'golden rule'? The golden rule is where the testator/testatrix of a will has an illness or is simply 'elderly' a doctor should be engaged to determine that the testator/testatrix has 'testamentary capacity' to sign the will. This was the comments of the court in a 1975 English case. It's going to be the 50th anniversary of the case. Some thoughts: 1. This has led to some practices having the standard practice that as long as the testator/testatrix is above 70 years of age, they must go to the doctor to receive a memo. 2. The question is that there are many 70 years olds who do not suffer from mental capacity loss or have any medical issues. 3. The question is whether this formula is endorsing 'ageism'. It would be a good time to take a closer look at the 'golden rule'. I would reformulate it as such: 1. In the course of taking instructions, were there any 'red flags' that the practitioner should be reasonably alerted to that warrant a further examination by the doctor? 2. Did the practitioner preliminary seek confirmation from the testator/testatrix that he/she was not suffering from any medical conditions that cognitively affected him/her. The 'golden rule' should be reinterpreted from the perspective of testamentary capacity/mental capacity principles whether the testator/testatrix could understand, retain, weigh and communicate their wishes as per the information that they had on their own estate. https://lnkd.in/gNZgCA4u (another good blog post by someone else)

The moral of the story is simple: You can be upset and emotional when you find out that you have been left out of a will or that very little was left to you. But think twice before challenging a will because if you lose, you will have to pay the legal cost to the winning side unless exceptional circumstances. The cost of the legal fees of the 5 granddaughters who inherited 50 GBP each was way more than the 50 GBP they each got.

Super surprised when Doyle’s Guide contacted me earlier that I was on their list of Recommended Family Lawyers. Really humbled to see my name here amongst the expected names in our Family Bar! 😂

Singapore is introducing a new reason by divorce by 'mutual consent' but it's still murky waters: How do you show that parties have tried to reconcile? What's the evidence needed? More examples from the court would be good.

'Pre-nup' season starting - argues that we people going on to their 2nd or 3rd wedding or going into their first with major inheritance, Pre-nups, in England, like in Singapore, while not binding, can be very persuasive if well drafted and with both side having the benefit of legal advice.