Why should you subscribe to Inheritance Act Claims: Law, Practice and Procedure
Inheritance Act Claims is the only updateable service devoted to claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and is now available as either a print subscription or as part of LexisLibrary. The interrelationship of claims under the 1975 Act and other areas of practice means that the law is constantly evolving. This clear and comprehensive work combines detailed explanatory commentary with invaluable precedents, case summaries and useful source material including consolidated legislation.
A subscription to Inheritance Act Claims is:
- Up to date
This work is updated twice annually to take account of all changes relevant to the 1975 Act, ensuring you are always kept up to date with developments in the field.
The text is supplemented by checklists, statutes, CPR, tables and precedent materials, which provide you with everything you need to advance your client's case successfully.
The author is a leading chancery barrister, praised in Chambers & Partners for "knowing his subject thoroughly". He is assisted by a team of contributors with extensive experience not only in these claims, but also in divorce, tax and international trusts, ensuring that all angles are covered.
Inheritance Act Claims remains the most comprehensive work available on this increasingly important area of law and is an invaluable resource for private client solicitors and trust practitioners, as well as Chancery barristers and family lawyers. It contains a section dedicated to the meaning of “maintenance” that also looks at the relevance of state benefits, judicial attempts to define maintenance and the application of the judicial approach to maintenance as well as lumps sums or periodic payments and the relevance of social change. The coverage on “maintenance” is one small section within this comprehensive, leading volume on the 1975 Act which covers the full spectrum of issues relevant to these claims. Read more about this topic...
With a foreword by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe.
With contributions from Miranda Allardice Barrister, 5 Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, Keith Gordon Barrister, Temple Tax Chambers and Jonathan Fowles Barrister, Serle Court, 6 New Square, Lincoln's Inn
Table of contents
Preface to Issue 29, March 2018
In this issue we have continued the task of ensuring that the text is as up to date as it can be during a period where changes in the law and practice have been relatively small. In carrying out that task we have, for example, taken in such minor changes as there have been since the latter part of 2017 and early 2018 in terms of the CPR and practice generally; eg where orders have to be set aside for mistake, or non-disclosure. We have also noted the few reported authorities on the 1975 Act over the past months. It seems that the trend of these claims being settled before trial (if not before issue) is continuing and this is to be welcomed in a well-settled jurisdiction where, unless there is a sensible approach to compromise, many estates will be eaten up in costs.
Almost exactly one year after the Supreme Court’s decision in Ilott v Blue Cross  UKSC 17 (‘Ilott’) the effect of that decision continues to be the subject of deliberation and in some cases argument.
We note that the decision of the Court of Appeal on 19 December 2017 in Lewis v Warner  EWCA Civ 2182 (‘Lewis’) is an example of consideration of Ilott at high level and is referred to in the revised text in this issue. It is a good example of how an unmarried partner’s claim under s 1(1)(ba) and s 1(1A) of the 1975 Act (the claimant was aged 91 years) was satisfied by a transfer of the deceased’s house in which he and his deceased partner had lived for many years. That transfer was to be by a payment of its market value established at the trial (£385,000) by the claimant to the deceased’s estate. Provision by way of the claimant having to move to a new home was rejected by the trial judge on the basis of the specific reasons why that would have been unsatisfactory for the claimant and the Court of Appeal upheld that approach. What is interesting is that the Court of Appeal took a robust approach to the trial judge’s conclusions and order and applied the dicta (in particular) of Lord Hughes in Ilott as regards the meaning of maintenance and that it was open to satisfy a claim based on that standard by ordering a transfer of the house in specie in return for the payment of its value, which the claimant could afford to do. Lewis is a paradigm example of the appellate court’s refusal to overturn awards unless something has gone badly wrong in terms of the findings of the trial judge, or the exercise of that judge’s discretion, as in pointed out under ‘Appeals’ in Chapter 15 of this book. So far as we are aware Lewis is also the first example of the Court of Appeal’s consideration and application of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ilott.
We have endeavoured to state the law as at 1 March 2018.
- Frequently Encountered Issues Arising in 1975 Act Claims
- The Practical Approach to Claims: Conducting the Case
- The Practical Approach to Claims: Part 2
- Who is an Eligible Claimant?
- Problems which may Affect the Claims of Applicants who would Otherwise be Eligible
- What is Reasonable Financial Provision?
- The Matters to which the Court Must Have Regard under Section 3 of the 1975 Act
- Special Factors under Section 3
- Problems with the Net Estate
- Assessing the Value of Claims: What is the Claim Worth?
- The Position of the Personal Representative in Claims under the 1975 Act
- The Powers of the Court
- Taxation and the 1975 Act
- Procedure, Hearings and Costs
- The Mediation of the 1975 Act Claims
- 1975 Act Claims, Will Drafting and Other Advice
- Statutory Materials etc
- Checklists and Questionnaires
- Case Summaries