BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Representation of Singh [2008] JRC 120A (30 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2008/2008_120A.html Cite as: [2008] JRC 120A |
||
[New search] [Help]
[2008]JRC120A
royal court
(Samedi Division)
30th July 2008
|
Before : |
M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Allo and Le Cornu. |
IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF SARDAR PRITHVI PAL SINGH (DECEASED).
Advocate R. J. Michel for the Representors.
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. This is an application by the Representors who are two of the Executors of a Will dated 11th March, 1998 executed by the deceased. He also executed a codicil in July 1999. He died on 21st September, 2003 domiciled in India. We have expert evidence to the effect that it is not necessary to prove the Will and codicil in India and accordingly, no grant of probate has been issued there. A grant of probate has been issued by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands on 4th September, 2004 in relation to the Will and codicil. It was granted to the three Executors named in the Will, namely the Representors and a Mr Ravinder Nath. By notice, 14th April, 2005, Mr Nath resigned as Executor. We have an affidavit of law to the effect that this is in order under Indian Law. Mr Nath has not, however, signed the formal Notice of Renunciation which is normally lodged with the Greffier in such circumstances.
2. Since the grant of probate in the Cayman Islands was obtained, photocopies of two further codicils have been discovered in the belongings of the deceased's brother. The codicils are dated respectively May 1998 and November 1998. We have received affidavits of execution from the witnesses of both of these codicils but, despite extensive searches, no trace of the originals has been found. The deceased owned 51% of a company in Jersey, which owns a property in the United Kingdom, and accordingly, probate is now needed in Jersey. The Representors seek to obtain a grant issued just to them on the back of the grant issued by the Grand Cayman Court and they also seek admission to probate of the photocopies of the two additional codicils.
3. We take first the point concerning Mr Nath. Rule 22 of the Probate (General) Rules 1998 provides that a renunciation by an Executor named in a Will should be made by Form 22 as shown in the schedule to the Rules or in a form substantially to the like effect. As we have said, Mr Nath has refused to sign Form 22. However the original of his Letter of Resignation as an Executor dated 14th April, 2005, is lodged with this Court. In our judgment, that letter makes his intention absolutely clear. The only matter which would be contained if he had signed Form 22 but which is not contained in his letter, is a statement that he has not intermeddled in the Jersey Estate. However, as Advocate Michel has pointed out, the only Jersey Estate here comprises the shares in the Jersey company and there is evidence that no change to those shares has been made since the death of the deceased.
4. We are satisfied that the letter from Mr Nath is in a form substantially to like effect as Form 22 and accordingly, we authorise the grant of probate to the Representors as being two of the three Executors named in the Will.
5. The second aspect before us is whether probate should be granted in respect of the photocopies of the two additional codicils. There is clear authority in this Court that the Court will admit a photocopy of a Will or codicil to probate where it is satisfied that it is a copy of the original which was duly executed. For an example of this see the case of Re Hewett [1996] JLR 33. We are quite satisfied that the requirements for admitting a photocopy to probate are met in this case; we have the photocopies, they clearly were executed in the presence of the two witnesses as the affidavits of attestation show and the form of attestation complies with that of Jersey Law in the sense that it was attestation in the presence of two witnesses. This fulfils Article 29 of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1999.
6. We are satisfied that the originals are lost and in the circumstances we authorise the admission of those two photocopies to probate.
