header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 September 2019 / Paul Hewitt , Sarah Aughwane
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Clarification on standstill agreements

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

A claimant relying on a standstill agreement in 1975 Act claims does take a risk, but one that will almost certainly be worth taking in future, as Paul Hewitt & Sarah Aughwane explain

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the '1975 Act'), claims started more than six months after the grant of probate need the court's permission to proceed.

That is sometimes referred to as a 'limitation period'. But it is a different creature. With a 1975 Act claim, the court always retains discretion as to whether or not to permit a claim to proceed out of time.

Nevertheless, it is common practice among solicitors dealing with 1975 Act claims to borrow the concept of standstill agreements from limitation cases.

That practice has been closely scrutinised, and now clearly approved by the Court of Appeal in Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336, [2019] All ER (D) 31 (Aug).

Facts

Michael Cowan, a businessman credited with bringing the black bin liner to the

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll