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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
back-to-top-scroll