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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll