D.K. BRADSHAW, D.K. BRADSHAW and A.J. BRADSHAW v McCLUSKEY, de GRUCHY, RICHARDSON (Executor of the Will of LE BRETON) and POINGDESTRE [Royal Ct]

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Crill, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Hamilton and Le Cornu):
Judgment Date12 February 1976
Date12 February 1976
ROYAL COURT
(Crill, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Hamilton and Le Cornu):

R. Vibert for the plaintiffs;

P.R. Le Cras for the defendants.

Land Lawcontract of sale40-day rulecontract of sale annullable by heirs or devisees of land of vendor who dies within 40 days of passing contractcustomary rule still in force unaffected by legislation

Successionwillsrevocationrevocation of devise by passing contract for sale of same land conditional upon survival of testator for 40 days after passing contractheir or devisee of land has locus standi to seek annulment of contract in these circumstances

CRILL, DEPUTY BAILIFF: The facts in this case are not in dispute and may be stated shortly. On the 24th June, 1964, Mrs. Ada May Poingdestre, widow of Mr. William Thomas George Le Breton, executed a will in proper form (she later added a codicil which is not relevant to these proceedings) by which, inter alia, she devised the usufruct of No. 32 Hue Street, and Nos. 1 and 2 Field View Villas, both properties being in St. Helier, to Mr. Douglas Kennerley Bradshaw, the first plaintiff in both actions, and the nue-proprit to Mr. Donald Kennerley Bradshaw and Mr. Alan John Bradshaw, the second plaintiffs likewise in both actions. Advocate Denys Philip Richardson was appointed Executor to the personal estate and he is the second defendant in both actions. Mrs. Le Breton bequeathed the residue of her personal estate equally between Mr. Douglas Kennerley Bradshaw and Mrs. Olga Margaret Poingdestre, widow of Mr. Charles George Holmes, the last-named being the third defendant in both actions. On the 8th March, 1974, Mrs. Le Breton sold No. 32 Hue Street to Charles Le Quesne (1956) Ltd. for 15,000. The company is the first defendant in the action concerning that property. On the 15th March, 1974, Mrs. Le Breton sold Nos. 1 and 2 Field View Villas to Mr. and Mrs. Gerard McCluskey for 7,400. Those purchasers are the first defendants in the action concerning that property. Mrs. Le Breton died of natural causes on the 21st March, 1974. Because the issues were the same in both actions the cases were heard together. Advocate R. Vibert appeared for the plaintiffs. The arguments for all three defendants were submitted by Advocate Le Cras. Hereafter in this paragraph when we speak of the first defendants we include both Charles Le Quesne (1956) Ltd. and Mr. and Mrs. McCluskey. The action against the first defendants is to show cause why their respective contracts should not be cancelled and annulled by reason of the death of Mrs. Le Breton within forty days from their passing and for such other causes as might require the cancellation. The actions against the second defendant, the Executor, call upon him to witness the cancellation and annulment of the contracts and out of the personal estate of the deceased to reimburse the respective considerations to the first defendants. The third defendant is actioned to show cause why the above reliefs should not be granted. The first and second defendants (in the action against Mr. and Mrs. McCluskey) pleaded, inter alia that it was not for them to show cause why the contract should not be annulled and to witness it respectively, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Rahman v Chase Bank (CI) Ltd
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 6 June 1991
    ...242 Ex. 466; 1941-50 T.D. 145, unreported, followed. (3) Bolan (Marc) Charitable Trust, In re, 1981 J.J. 117. (4) Bradshaw v. McCluskey, 1976 J.J. 335, followed. (5) Cohen, In re, [1960] Ch. 179; [1959] 3 All E.R. 740; (1959), 103 Sol. Jo. 961. (6) Cooper v. Public Health Cttee., 1966 J.J. ......
  • Snell v Beadle (Née Silcock)
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 18 January 1999
    ...... an action for specific performance and the Royal Court (Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and Jurats Gruchy ... Droit Coutumer de Jersey (1943), to which I will make reference later in detail)). From these ......
  • Ostroumoff (Née Martland)
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 14 September 1999
    ...Att. Gen. v. Corbiere Pavilion Hotel Ltd., 1982 J.J. 173. (2) Att. Gen. v. Howard, 1974 J.J. 105, followed. (3) Bradshaw v. McCluskey, 1976 J.J. 335. (4) Bristol & West Bldg. Socy. v. May May & Merrimans (No. 2), [1997] 3 All E.R. 206, considered. (5) Buckingham v. Constable of St. Helier, ......
  • The Representation of Thompson, Amy (Née Remon), Whorrall (Née Remon) and Remon
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 15 May 1989
    ...... ROYAL COURT Tomes, Deputy Bailiff: . M.H. ...49. (2) Bradshaw v. McCluskey , 1976 J.J. 336, considered. ...Bd. v. de Gruchy , 1971 J.J. 1819. (7) Macready v. ... Poingdestre, Remarques et animadversions sur la Coutume ... succession to acquêts , the paternal will exclude the maternal where there is equality of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT