Samh

"nstead, she highlights a rift that supposedly materialised when Burrage left Thailand for the UK, a move Kanokporn allegedly tried to counteract by urging his return." Is that not splitting up? It mentions a "rift" and she urged "his return".

My first thoughts but she is not contesting the will. She is going after the two sons. So even more bizarre.

I thought at first this was a challenge of the will. It is extremely unlikely that would be a no win no fee basis. No win no fee are generally for accident claims where there is an almost certainty of winning. But given the case is against the sons may be. But with no win no fee in the event of a win after fees there is very little for the plaintif.

I see. You would carry on paying somebody that you split up with. That is extremely generous of you.

Probably thought as they weren't married why should he make a new will. If he was still leaving everything to his 2 sons as the 2006 will the rewriting the will is £500 for a soliciter to just change the date and re-issue the will.

I don't get this bit "It is highlighted that any money transferred was linked to properties held in Kanokporn’s name, due to restrictions on foreign ownership in Thailand, rather than being contributions towards Burrage’s UK business dealings, reported The Daily Mail. " ie transfer from th UK to Thailand. How does that support her claim that she lent money to him?

Some stupidity not balls. But I misread the original post. She is going after the sons not the her, for want of a better word, her expartner's estate. I assume she is trying to scare them into making an out of court settlement. I fail to see that she has any case against the sons. They inherited based on theit father's will. That the estate goes to them. I have no idea if there is any legal precident to go after benificeries. They inherited as per the will. Now few years later she is trying it on.

£400,000 should still buy a reasonable semi but not in London or the surrounding areas. Certainly further away from London

I can't see why he would still have been supporting her after 2021.

He returned to the UK in 2021. I can't see the date when he died. But I assume she ceased to be financial supported by him since 2021.

If she is going to UK to bring a court case then would tourist visa be appropriate. She is not in the UK as a tourist.

In UK law if you challenge a will in the UK it the estate that you are taking to court, not those who inherit from the estate. In the remore chance that she wins then the estate pays her costs.

I misread that, he promised it to her. hahahahahahaha

It can be challenged but I don't see how she stands a chance. As he to her lending him £200,000 ( 8.6 million baht) there is of course a bank transaction to substantiate this? Not to mention where did she get 8.6 million baht from?

What is the betting she hasn't even spoke to a UK solicater let alone a barrister.

But if it looks dodgey the judge probably wont let the case proceed. Of course if her lawyers also think it is dodgey short of her stumping up £30000 deposit they wont proceed. If she loses what chance do they have getting any money out of her.

Whilst that is true but "In England, entitlement to inherit under a will is determined by the terms of the will itself, meaning the person making the will ("testator") has complete freedom to choose who inherits their estate and in what proportions, as long as it's a valid will; this is known as "testamentary freedom" in English law; if no will exists, inheritance is governed by intestacy rules which typically prioritize spouses and children equally" She was not a spouse so she has no rights if a will exists and she is not mentioned in it. She will lose.

Yes. When my Thai wife split up with me I immediately changed my UK and Thai wills. The UK solicitor got me to write and sign a statement saying my then still legally married wife was getting nothing. She contributed nothing and did very well while we were together. The gravy train ended when when she split up.

True, if she wins. However if she loses then she pays her costs and the other sides costs. I and one of my brothers were left ot of our mother's will. Now we could challenge the will. On the face of it we have no rights what so ever. She was fully entitled to leave the whole lot to the dog's homeif she so chose. We dont have any "right" to inherit. It is a big risk to blow £30,000 plus to attempt to make a claim.

Yes I think the wording in UK law was that she benefited during the relationship. What reason is there to inherit anything. Not married, no dependent children.

Have I got this right. They had an affair, they weren't married. There are no dependent children. She was not mentioned in the will. So her reason to inherit is what exactly? Zero chance I would say. and spending a shed load of money to prove the point.

Adnams Broadside but a bit difficult getting it here. In that case Leo.

Right but they jettisoned their bombs, threw the guns and radios out to save weight. Throwing passengers with their carry on out might be a problem.

How would you know it wasn't working?

Seen quite a few on line but it never gives the size of the tube so not much help. I needed an actual store so I can compare. But I have been reading up on fitting an LED light and assuming I can find one the right size that should be fairly simple, Guessining it has an electronic ballast I just remove the ballast altogether or wire directly to the new light fitting. This is for a magnifying inspection light and they are not cheap. Surprised, for the sake of saving the planet, they don't sell a retro fit LED kit. Just want to sell a completely new one.