header-logo header-logo

03 May 2012
Issue: 7512 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family Provision

Lilleyman v Lilleyman and another [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 105 (Apr)

It was well established that the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 imposed a two-stage task upon the court when addressing a claim for financial provision. The first question was whether the will had made reasonable financial provision for the claimant. The second question, which arose only if the first was answered in the negative, was whether and to what extent the court should exercise its own wide powers in that respect.

Further, s 3 required the court in conducting both those stages of the analysis to have regard to the matters set out in s 3(1)(a)–(g). Each of those matters might be of infinitely variable weight, on the particular facts of any given case.
 

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll