header-logo header-logo

24 April 2017 / Elis Gomer
Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

A cause for concern

The government's controversial plans to hike up probate fees bore the hallmark of a tax, says Elis Gomer

A cursory glance through the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) press releases on the now defunct hike in probate fees demonstrates that the government was presenting the changes as ‘fair’ and ‘progressive’.

In particular, there was emphasis on the point that over half of estates would not pay any fee at all (58% of estates are worth below £50,000, the suggested lower limit) and on the fact that the new fees would increase with the value of the estate rather than being a flat fee.

The reality is that the proposals were anything but progressive. Dig deeper into the ministerial commentary and you will find the revelation that the main driver for these changes is that the MoJ has identified a ‘need’ for a new source of funding for the courts. Heaven forfend that we should view a functioning court system as a cornerstone of society and something worth funding in its own right. No, the ministerial rhetoric is that

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

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Chair of the Association of Pension Lawyers joins as partner

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Group names Shakespeare Martineau partner head of Sheffield office

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Four legal directors promoted to partner across UK offices

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll