header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 February 2025 / Amanda Smallcombe
Issue: 8103 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate , Inheritance tax
printer mail-detail

Success stories?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
207236
Amanda Smallcombe examines success fees in claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  • Discusses Hirachand v Hirachand and another [2024] UKSC 43 in relation to success fees incurred by a claimant under a conditional fee arrangement.
  • Considers the implications of the Supreme Court decision in that case, for both solicitors and claimants.

On 18 December 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the case of Hirachand v Hirachand and another [2024] UKSC 43, settling the issue of whether success fees incurred by a claimant under a conditional fee agreement (CFA) are recoverable as part of the substantive award in claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act).

The case

Navinchandra Hirachand (the deceased) died in 2016 and his wife, Nalina Hirachand (the widow), inherited his entire estate under the terms of his will. The widow was in poor health, living in a care home, where she would remain for life. The deceased’s daughter, Sheila Hirachand, had severe mental

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll