header-logo header-logo

06 March 2019
Issue: 7831 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Family
printer mail-detail

Red light for stale claims

Excusable delays should be ‘measured in weeks’

Family lawyers will be urgently reviewing limitation deadlines after the High Court rejected a claim filed nearly 17 months out of date.

In Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam), Mr Justice Mostyn held that a widow could not bring a claim for financial provision from her husband’s £16m estate because she was out of time.

‘In my judgment, absent highly exceptional factors, in the modern era of civil ligation the limit of excusable delay should be measured in weeks, or, at most, a few months,’ Mostyn J said, in his judgment.

The widow wished to challenge the terms of the late husband’s will, which placed the bulk of his assets into two trusts. She argued that she had been unaware of the six-month time limit in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and that both parties had agreed to a time extension, and asked the judge to exercise his discretion.

Mostyn J declined, however, stating in his judgment: ‘Litigation is intrinsically stressful and extremely expensive.

‘The time limit must be there to protect beneficiaries from being vexed by a stale claim, whether or not the estate has been distributed. Similarly, the time limit must be there to spare the court from being burdened with stale claims which should have been made much earlier.’

Richard Kershaw, family law partner at Hunters Solicitors, said Mostyn J’s comments will ‘cause concern and a lot of urgent reviewing of files by lawyers over the next few days as they consider approaching limitation deadlines, and is likely to see a sharp uptick in claims being issued.

‘The judge is well known for his robust comments and shaping of the law. He has made it clear that agreements between lawyers to, effectively, waive the six-month deadline for starting such claims, must stop, saying “I suggest that it is a practice that should come to an immediate end. It is not for the parties to give away time that belongs to the court… the claim should be issued in time and then the court invited to stay the proceedings while the negotiations are pursued”.’

Issue: 7831 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll