Guy Holland is a specialist practitioner whose practice is keenly focused on inheritance disputes or claims relating to trusts of land.
Guy’s experience lies in disputes concerning the creation, ownership, transfer or protection of property rights or rights over property following the breakdown in relationships between cohabitees, family members and those involved in joint enterprise.
Much of Guy’s practice is made up of work relating to TOLATA, beneficial and resulting trusts, proprietary estoppel, undue influence and real estate fraud.
Guy has the skills and experience necessary to deal with cases concerned with challenges to the validity of a will, undue influence as well as disputes relating to the proper administration of an estate.
Guy also frequently acts in claims made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Cohabitations Disputes – TOLATA 1996 and Sch 1 Children Act 1989
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Family Finance - specialising in acting for Interveners
Appointments & Memberships
- Chancery Bar Association
- Contentious Trusts Associates and Junior Counsel - ConTrA
Hudson v Hathway  EWCA 1648
The Court of Appeal confirmed detrimental reliance as an essential ingredient where parties vary the extent of their beneficial interests informally and rely upon a common intention constructive trust.
In addition the Court of Appeal held for the first time that a name placed at the end of an email will be treated as a signature for the purposes of s53(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Ubbi v Ubbi  EWHC 1396 (Ch)
A successful claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 on behalf of two illegitimate infant children against their father’s estate which was valued at £4.5 million. The case provides an important overview of how the court should approach claims by minors under the 1975 Act given the lack of reported decisions on this topic. The case also covers important considerations as to the meaning of ‘successful party’ under CPR 44.3.
McCabe v McCabe  EWHC 1591 (Ch)
In a 170 page judgment, the testatrix’s decision to disinherit one of her sons was found not to be based upon false beliefs or confabulations. Although she did suffer with Alzheimer’s disease when the will was executed she had the requisite capacity and understood the contents of the will and its effect. The will had been duly executed despite the witness to the signing claiming that he had in fact not been a witness to the signing by the tetatrix.
Long v Value Properties  EWHC 2981 (Ch)
The applicable sanction for failure to serve the further information identified in CPR PD 47 para.32.5, relating to conditional fee agreements, on time in detailed assessment proceedings was imposed by CPR r.44.3B(1)(c), which provided for a graduated sanction specifically referable to the period of default. The sanction under the CPR r.44.3B(1)(d), which rendered the whole success fee irrecoverable, did not apply as there had not been a complete failure to serve the required information in the course of the assessment process.
Stokes v Mardner  EWHC 1179 (QB) All ER (D) 131
Sham agreements, Exemplary Damages for Trespass to Land.
Eastwood v Eastwood  EWHC 953 (ch)
Constructive Trust / Partnership Assets.
A probate dispute relating to a number of pieces of land and dealing with the issue as to whether or not such land was held on trust for the beneficiaries as tenants in common or joint tenants.
Prebble v Costa (2010) EWCA Civ 717 CA (Civ Div)
The determination of an oral contract where there was no contemporaneous documentation and the unusual circumstances of the case rendered inherent probabilities elusive.