Peter Ikin
Peter Ikin
Age and health: Early 60s, apparently healthy.
Profession: music executive, successful.
Wealthy? Very (worth more than £10m).
Assets? Properties in Britain and Australia, and substantial assets in Jersey, the Isle of Man and Switzerland.
Marital status? In a civil partnership.
Domicile? Australia v Britain.
Will? A legally sound 2002 Aussie will, a photocopy of a seemingly homemade 2008 UK will.
Cause of death? "Unexpected." Maybe natural, maybe not.
An executive with Warner Music International, Peter Ikin was successful and much loved among his clients and colleagues, including Elton John, Rod Stewart, Billy Joel and other A-listers.
Ikin lived in a £2m flat in Chelsea and, in his late 50s, married - became a civil partner with - a younger Frenchman, Alexandre Despallieres.
They tied the knot in Chelsea Town Hall, London on 10 October 2008. A month and two days later (12 November), Ikin was found dead in a Paris hotel room. He was 62.
Despallieres inherited everything, thanks to the August 2008 will. He produced a photocopy, claiming that the original had been stolen in a burglary of the Chelsea flat after Ikin's death.
The 2008 will, the civil partnership, and Ikin's death all occurred within a four-month period.
When word of probate reached Australia, his relatives and friends were amazed, distraught and incredulous that Ikin had totally overlooked them.
In his 2002 Australian will, Ikin left his estate to his nephew (a priest), various friends, two goddaughters and three Australian charities. He stated that he was domiciled in New South Wales. He appointed two executors, both professionals: his solicitor and chartered accountant, both based in Australia.
The Australian contingent sued to overturn probate. They raised several distinct issues - forgery, domicile, nullified by marriage - but only one was necessary. (The forgery claim was never tested. If it had been, the lack of an original would have made it more difficult for experts to come to a conclusion.)
How not to do it
In contrast to the professionally-drafted legally and financially astute 2002 Australian will, the succinct 2008 UK will looks homemade but is shrewd in several respects (makes assertions regarding domicile and leave open the possibility of adoption, for example). However, in the most important respect - satisfying the requirements of the law regarding wills remaining valid after marriage - it failed utterly.
The 2008 "Will"
"I the undersigned Peter Anthony Ikin do by the present:
1. REVOKE all former Wills and Testamentary dispositions heretofore made by me AND DECLARE this to be my irrevocable last Will and Testament.
2. DIRECT that this, my last Will and Testament shall not be revoked by neither subsequent marriage, Civil Union Partnership nor adoption.
3. DECLARE that my country of domicile is the United Kingdom.
4. GIVE AND BEQUEATH to ALEXANDRE RENAUD MARCEL DESPALLIERES the entirety of my estate as a sole beneficiary."
(Some reports of this case present this document as the entire will, but the judge quotes these phrases as the "material provisions" of the will.)
The will was witnessed by two friends of Despallieres.
Australian challengers argued the civil partnership nullified the 2008 UK will, regardless of whether it was a forgery or not. (If you wonder how you can challenge a will that you claim is a forgery, you stipulate that you accept the authenticity of the will but only for purposes of this argument).
For the will to be valid, it had to demonstrate two facets: that Ikin intended a civil partnership with Despallieres in particular, and that he wanted the will to remain valid afterward.
Does this 2008 document assert that Ikin contemplated marrying Despallieres and wanted this will to remain valid after the marriage?
Despallieres argued that clause 2 plus clause 4 equates to Ikin specifying Despallieres as his intended civil partner.
Clause 2 mentions marriage but not Despallieres, and clause 4 mentions Despallieres but not marriage.
Two plus four equals null and void
In December 2009, a High Court judge decided that the will does not specify contemplation of marriage to Despallieres - the will does not link clause 2 to clause 4. He revoked probate and reinstated the 2002 Australian will. Afterward, both sides reached a settlement on the larger issues. Despallieres received £500,000 and accepted the validity of the Australian will.
Despallieres had already spent a considerable amount out estate money, buying jewellery and two Porsches, one for himself, one for a friend. According to media reports, these assets were confiscated and returned to the estate. (In some accounts, Despallieres bought three luxury cars and gave one to each of the two friends who also witnessed the 2008 will.)
The press also reported that Ikin had told friends that Despallieres had been urging Ikin to make a new will and make him joint owner of the Chelsea flat. Ikin had become wary of Despallieres, suspicious that the Frenchman might be after his money.
Overlooked in the commentary regarding this case is the inclusion, in the 2008 will, of the word 'adoption' in clause 2. Did the person who drafted that document contemplate Ikin adopting Despallieres rather than becoming his civil partner?
Did Ikin really die of natural causes? The Sydney Morning Herald reported in April 2010 - more than a year after the High Court ruling - that Paris police have opened an investigation into Ikin's death.
UPDATE - June 2010 French police questioned Despallieres and two others in connection with the death of Ikin.
