header-logo header-logo

Success story? A case with far-reaching inheritance implications

22 March 2024 / Andrew Wilkinson
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Features , Profession , Wills & Probate , Family
printer mail-detail
164814
While we await the Supreme Court judgment in Hirachand v Hirachand, Andrew Wilkinson analyses the case and its implications on inheritance—for lawyers, families and the third sector
  • The case of Hirachand v Hirachand turns on the specific issue of the success fee. The final judgment could reshape the funding of inheritance disputes, with far-reaching repercussions.

On the 18 January 2024, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Hirachand v Hirachand, one of very few cases ever to be heard by the Supreme Court in relation to claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The decision, which we are still awaiting at the date of writing, is significant for a large number of cases and could lead to a broader change in the costs regime surrounding claims under the Act.

Hirachand v Hirachand has been years in the making, arising from a 2020 ruling in an inheritance dispute over the will of Navinchandra Hirachand between Nalini, his wife, and Sheila,

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll