header-logo header-logo

23 October 2019 / Constance McDonnell KC
Issue: 7861 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

2019: claims to fame

9856
Constance McDonnell QC examines the year’s most notable 1975 Act decisions
  • The use of standstill agreements to prevent a claim having to be issued within six months of a grant of representation.
  • The quantification of claims where medical costs are a principal financial need.
  • Applications for interim relief.

2019 has been something of a momentous year so far for practitioners who deal with claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), with the decision of Mostyn J in Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam) casting doubt over the widely-used practice of ‘standstill agreements’ so as to prevent a claim having to be issued within six months of a grant of representation and to facilitate settlement discussions. The expedited decision of the Court of Appeal in that case should do much to settle concerns about continued use of such agreements, and has clarified the court’s approach to late claims. There has also been some helpful guidance from the court about the quantification of claims

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll