header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 March 2024 / Andrew Wilkinson
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Features , Profession , Wills & Probate , Family
printer mail-detail

Success story? A case with far-reaching inheritance implications

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Trowers & Hamlins—Rahul Sagar

Banking and finance practice bolstered by partner hire

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

mfg Solicitors—Ian Sheppard

Commercial litigation team welcomes senior associate in Birmingham

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll