Joshua has extensive experience of matters proceeding in the Chancery Division.
The considerable bulk of Joshua’s probate practice is concerned with the formal and substantive validity of wills. Joshua has acted in many cases concerning section 9 validity, undue influence, knowledge and approval, capacity and forged wills.
Joshua has also advised on, and appeared, in many applications for failing to make reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, including:
Joshua has experience in other chancery matters, including:
Re Morris (HHJ Simpkiss) (2019)
Josh represented the deceased’s daughters and sole beneficiaries of her estate. Their father claimed a constructive trust over the deceased’s property and also sought an award of reasonable financial provision pursuant to the 1975 Act. Following extensive cross-examination of the Claimant, the Judge found that the Claimant’s case “was littered with untruthful statements and with evidence designed to improve his case…” . Claim successfully defended in full.
Re K v A (2019)
Joshua represented the Defendant in a claim pleaded at £1.1 million following an accident at work in which a long drill bit penetrated the Claimant’s thoracic spine by over 20cm. The principal issue was loss of future earnings and the Claimant’s residual earning capacity. Liability was admitted and the claim settled for £185,000 following JSM.
Re Wright, (QBD) (2018)
Josh was instructed jointly by two defendants in a claim pleaded at £2.2 million following a devastating fire on a construction site. Primary liability was admitted and the matter proceeded solely in relation to contributory negligence and quantum. The case was a complex one involving a novel injury with dual experts in the fields of neurology, ENT surgery, psychiatry and speech and language therapy. The experts agreed that the Claimant had suffered a very rare clinical sub variant of laryngeal dystonia, although no expert was able to identify the mechanism of the disease. The Claimant sought damages for a permanent and disabling impediment to the production of his voice, together with lifelong injection therapy and loss of earnings. The matter was listed for trial in the Queen’s Bench Division but settled favourably at a pre-trial JSM.
Ashraf v Shah (Anthony Elleray QC, Chancery Division) (2018)
Joshua represented one of the defendants in a 10-day trial relating to the validity of a will, which covered a substantial property portfolio in Luton. The matter settled on the third day of trial following Joshua’s cross-examination of several of the Claimant’s witnesses.
Lomberg v Roszkowski, Gloucester & Cheltenham CC, HHJ Harington (2017)
Joshua represented the defendant in a claim for £250,000 following a road traffic accident. Liability was admitted but the dispute surrounded a substantial loss of earnings claim as the claimant imported unique Hungarian goods and was prevented from doing so as a result of a significant back injury. The defendant's orthopaedic surgeon was unable to attend trial but the court refused an application to adjourn and the matter proceeded with the claimant's orthopaedic surgeon in attendance only. Joshua cross-examined the claimant on the first day of trial and, by lunchtime, the claimant had taken the defendant's pre-trial offer of £20,000.
Carter v Walker, QBD (2016)
Joshua acted for the defendant in a fatals claim, the vast majority of which sought damages for an increased inheritance tax liability as the deceased passed within 7 years of substantial inter vivos transfers of shares to her son.
Re Fulton, QBD (2016)
Joshua was instructed as sole counsel for a principal contractor, one of three defendants, in a claim and contribution proceedings for over £1 million following a serious spinal injury during an extensive construction project. The matter settled favourably two days before the commencement of trial. Joshua's client took a significantly lower apportionment than the other two defendants.
Ashman v Thomas  EWHC 3806 (Ch)
An interesting case concerning the formal validity of three wills. Joshua successfully argued that the presumption of due execution upon regular attestation arose regardless of any suspicious circumstances, albeit the strength of the presumption may be affected by such circumstances. On the facts, two wills were found to be invalid but a first and earlier will was upheld. The decision on costs has attracted much commentary.
If you would like to instruct Joshua Hedgman or would like help or advice in doing so, please call and talk to our excellent clerking team, led by senior clerk Alan Kilbey MBE. Our phone number is +44 (0)20 7583 9241. Alternatively, please email us at email@example.com
For more information about our clerking team, please click here for the clerks page.
“Josh is an excellent barrister providing objective advice with his excellent knowledge of common law practice and procedure. He is our first port of call for personal injury quantum advices and with his unassuming natural charisma is our favourite choice for any liability dispute hearings with an untarnished feedback from clients. I would recommend him every time.”
Emma Bradshaw, Principal Solicitor AXA Insurance
Outside of the Bar, Joshua enjoys travel and theatre. He is a Governor of his former secondary school, Farnham Heath End School, and a lecturer in contract law on the Graduate Diploma in Law. He also examines for the leading A-level Law examination board.