header-logo header-logo

16 February 2012 / Paul Grimwood
Issue: 7501 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Be prepared

Will-makers should put their affairs in order early, says Paul Grimwood

Last year’s television series Can’t take it with you, starring Sir Gerry Robinson, was compulsory viewing in my household. The premise of the series was that, if there was likely to be a dispute after someone’s death about the contents of their will then it was better to try to agree a “settlement”, usually involving the whole family, while the will-maker was still alive.

Of course, once the cameras had been packed up and the film makers had gone away, the will-maker was free to change their will, possibly making a new one in radically different terms. Alternatively, the good intentions of everyone concerned could have been thwarted by someone connected to the will-maker making an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) after they have died.

Recognised applicants

The first hurdle for an applicant is to establish that they can bring themselves within one of the categories of “recognised applicants” under s 1 of I(PFD)A 1975

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll