ÿþ<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html> <head> <script language="JavaScript1.1"> // distributed by http://www,hypergurl.com <!-- var debug = true; function right(e) { if (navigator.appName == 'Netscape' && (e.which == 3 || e.which == 2)) return false; else if (navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' && (event.button == 2 || event.button == 3)) { alert('This Page is fully protected!'); return false; } return true; } document.onmousedown=right; if (document.layers) window.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN); window.onmousedown=right; //--></script> <title><?php echo $page_title; ?></title> <meta name="description" content="a website for lawyers"/> <meta name="keywords" content="<?php echo $keyword; ?>"/> <link href="ibk-ba.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/> <style type="text/css" media="print"> BODY {display:none;visibility:hidden;} </style> <script language="JavaScript1.1"> // distributed by http://www,hypergurl.com <!-- var debug = true; function right(e) { if (navigator.appName == 'Netscape' && (e.which == 3 || e.which == 2)) return false; else if (navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' && (event.button == 2 || event.button == 3)) { alert('This Page is fully protected!'); return false; } return true; } document.onmousedown=right; if (document.layers) window.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN); window.onmousedown=right; //--></script> </head> <body ondragstart="return false" onselectstart="return false"> <script language=JavaScript> <!-- //Disable right mouse click Script //By Maximus (maximus@nsimail.com) w/ mods by ibk-lawyers.com //For full source code, visit http://www.ibk-lawyers.com var message="Function Disabled!"; /////////////////////////////////// function clickIE4(){ if (event.button==2){ alert(message); return false; } } function clickNS4(e){ if (document.layers||document.getElementById&&!document.all){ if (e.which==2||e.which==3){ alert(message); return false; } } } if (document.layers){ document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN); document.onmousedown=clickNS4; } else if (document.all&&!document.getElementById){ document.onmousedown=clickIE4; } document.oncontextmenu=new Function("alert(message);return false") // --> </script> <div id="wrapper"> <div id="branding"> <!--BRANDING--> <p class="sub" align="right"><i>"Il faut &eacute;pater les bourgeois."</i></p> <h3 class="branding">ibk-lawyers.com</h3> </div> <!--BRANDING END--> <div id="nav"> <!--NAVIGATION--> <ul id="tabnav"> <li><a href="http://www.ibk-lawyers.com/index.html" title="ibk-lawyers.com home">home &nbsp;::&nbsp;</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.property.ibk-lawyers.com/index.php" title="ibk-lawyers property">property &nbsp;::&nbsp;</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.business.ibk-lawyers.com/index.php" title="small business">business &nbsp;::&nbsp;</a> <li><a href="http://www.ibk-lawyers.com/websites.html" title="job">website services &nbsp;::&nbsp;</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.ibk-lawyers.com/clients.html" title="clients">clients &nbsp;::&nbsp;</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.ibk-lawyers.com/classified.php" title="legal classified">legal classified &nbsp;::&nbsp;</a></li> </ul> </div><!--NAVIGATION END--> <div id="left"> <!--LEFT COLUMN-->

Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother & Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 56

It is unfortunate that the important issues to which we have drawn attention should be raised by an application made by a person motivated by a belief that is both irrational and scandalous.

The Appellant took out a summons in September 2006 to identify whether the Royal Wills made any provisions for him on the basis that he was not the son of the parents named in his birth certificate (he was born in Kenya) but was the illegitimate son of HRH Princess Margaret. The affidavit in support stated that he had formed the conclusion based on 'personal recollections, events, circumstantial evidence, conversations, reactions and extensive research'. The President of the Family Division held that none of the matters set out remotely constituted evidence supportive of the appellant's belief and struck out the application. The affidavit filed in support of the executors application to strike out the application set out in detail particulars of HRH Princess Margaret's activities, evidenced by photographs of her appearance in the period before and around the appellant's date of birth to show that they were 'manifestly incompatible' with the appellant's claim to be her son.

There is of course a difference between 'the public interest' properly so called and the interest of the public in the sense simply of its seemingly insatiable curiosity about the private lives, friendships, and affections of members of the royal family and their circle, as distinct from matters of genuine concern to historians or investigative journalists.

The Royal Wills were 'sealed' by an earlier order of the former President of the Family Division. In striking out the appellant's application, the President based his decision on the assumption that

“there is no good reason to suppose that the President thought that they did, or that she considered that the 'unique status' of the royal family was a reason in itself to accord protection to its members. There would have been no reason, however, why that so-called status should not have carried considerable weight in assessing the particular need for protection from speculation, gossip and general intrusion into the privacy of those named under (or indeed omitted from) the provisions of the wills. There is of course a difference between 'the public interest' properly so called and the interest of the public in the sense simply of its seemingly insatiable curiosity about the private lives, friendships, and affections of members of the royal family and their circle, as distinct from matters of genuine concern to historians or investigative journalists.”

The appellant also argued in the lower court that the sealing order infringed his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The President held that the Convention had been concluded to protect real, not imaginary, claims.

The question before the court of appeal was however simply whether the President of the Family Division was right to strike out the appellant's claims and held that he was not.

While the court of appeal did not disagree with the President's view on the justification of the sealing, the court of appeal considered that issues such as the principles that give right of public inspection and when is inspection 'undesirable or otherwise inappropriate' under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 were issues of public importance and the appellant was entitled to have a substantive hearing. The court of appeal also expressed its regret that these important issues should be raised by an application 'made by a person motivated by a belief that is both irrational and scandalous'.

^
become a sponsor of ibk-lawyers.com