header-logo header-logo

12 February 2016 / Steve Evans
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Mountain or molehill?

A small earthquake…or just business as usual? Steve Evans reports on the impact of Ilott v Mitson

It is said that mid-summer is “the silly season” for reporting of news, when stories about somewhat less than momentous happenings take up the space occupied by more weighty news items at other times of the year. So it was that in mid-summer last year, in the dying days of July, a technical Court of Appeal decision, concerned more with entitlement to state benefits than with controversy, received much more media attention than most Court of Appeal decisions. Reports on the BBC Today programme, and headlines in many newspapers of the “shock, horror” variety—such as “A court ruling has cast doubt on the sanctity of our final wishes” and “Where there’s a will, there’s a way to betray the deceased” (both in The Sunday Times, 2 August 2015) followed the Court of Appeal decision in Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797, [2015] All ER (D) 290 (Jul). It also has to be said that the outrage of certain

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll