header-logo header-logo

Clarification on standstill agreements

23 September 2019 / Paul Hewitt , Sarah Aughwane
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll