header-logo header-logo

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

Clarification on standstill agreements

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll