header-logo header-logo

28 March 2019 / Constance McDonnell KC
Issue: 7834 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

‘I don’t want my child to have a penny!’

How does testamentary freedom fit into recent decisions in 1975 Act claims? Constance McDonnell QC explains

  • There is no suggestion in post-Ilott cases of any form of presumption that testamentary wishes will prevail.

Now that the dust has begun to settle since the initial and occasionally volcanic reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ilott v The Blue Cross  [2017] UKSC 17 in March 2017, it seems like a good moment to review how trial judges and (on one occasion) the Court of Appeal have treated testamentary freedom in non-spousal claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Practitioners will recall the press headlines on the day of the judgment and during the following weeks trumpeting a triumph for testamentary freedom, which may have caused some concern for prospective claimants, but can claimants now be heartened by recent decisions?

It is worth setting the scene by noting two key points. First, there has always been something of a tension between on 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

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