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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll