Did the Judge Mean To Say This? (BBC News Website)

  gardener 21:52 15 Oct 2007

The Conservatives have lost a battle to keep an £8.3m bequest by a man whose son described him as delusional.

Pharmaceuticals mogul Branislav Kostic, who died in 2005, wrote his will in the 1980s after saying Mrs Thatcher would save the world from "satanic monsters".

But his only son Zoran, 50, contested the bequest at the High Court, saying his father was "deluded and insane" and he was entitled to the entire estate.

Handing down his judgement, Mr Justice Henderson, said Mr Kostic would not have left the money to the Tories if he had been "of sound mind".

  GANDALF <|:-)> 22:12 15 Oct 2007

Sounds spot on to me.


  Fruit Bat /\0/\ 22:18 15 Oct 2007

Sounds as if there is a Judge in touch with the modern world.


  GANDALF <|:-)> 22:18 15 Oct 2007

In the rather obvious absence of sightings/meetings with 'satanic monsters', one might be inclined to believe, or if one was a Judge, rule that the bloke was totally ga-ga and living with Dr Dream and the Morpheus twins.


  mrwoowoo 22:18 15 Oct 2007

What is the point of leaving a will if it's not worth the paper it's written on?
Time and time again you hear of greedy,money grabbing,materialistic so and so's challenging wills and succeeding.If my parents leave me nothing in their will,then so be it.You certainly won't find me challenging their wishes.
People work all their lives to build up their estates,(some more than others)only for a judge to tell them who they can and cannot leave it too.
All such challenges should be illegal,except in the case of blackmail and extortion.
Tell me who to leave my money to? Over my dead body.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 22:22 15 Oct 2007

'If my parents leave me nothing in their will'...you might think somewhat differently if the sum was to be £8.3m.

'All such challenges should be illegal,except in the case of blackmail and extortion.'...and living with the la-la fairies.


  VoG II 22:30 15 Oct 2007


Without the link it seems a pretty bizarre judgment to me.

  Forum Editor 22:39 15 Oct 2007

Fortunately the people who framed the law had a little more sense than that.

Not anyone can challenge a will, it can only be done by a spouse, and ex spouse (provided he/she hasn't remarried), a child or stepchild, or a cohabitee.

'Not of sound mind' means that the person making the will didn't understand what he/she was signing, or wasn't aware of the true extent of his/her property. It may also mean that the person was suffering from a mental illness. In this case it's hard to tell without knowing a good deal more, but I have to say I'm surprised by the judgment. I imagine there's more to it.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 22:43 15 Oct 2007

click here there is a little more.


  anskyber 22:51 15 Oct 2007

Seems like a reasonable judgement to me.

I imagine the judge did not intend the alternative interpretation suggested by this thread, although I have sympathy with the idea that leaving money to the Conservative (or any) party automatically raises the question.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 Hack Latest News: How Secure is your Wi-Fi?

Photoshop CC 2018 released with new Curvature Pen and better brush tools

Best kids apps for iPhone & iPad

Comment utiliser Twitter ?