Family provision claims

Family provision claims—preliminary issues

Before the court can exercise jurisdiction it must be proved that the deceased died domiciled in England and Wales. The question of domicile can be a complex issue but broadly, it will depend on the deceased’s:

•
domicile of origin
•
domicile of choice: this does not replace the domicile of origin but may suspend it

Where the deceased’s domicile is contended, it is for the claimant to prove domicile on the balance of probabilities. Proof of death is also an obvious prerequisite of an application and the burden of proof of that also rests with the claimant.

Proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) in the High Court are assigned to either the Chancery Division or Family Division, depending on the claimant's choice. Proceedings can also be issued in the County Court.

See Practice Note: Family provision claims—preliminary issues.

Domicile and habitual residence

There are significant differences between domicile and habitual residence: habitual residence is generally a question of fact whereas domicile is a legal concept. There are also differences in

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

CTJ issues new local practice note enforcing strict adherence to Public Law Outline in London family courts

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CTJ) has released a local practice note for London family courts, mandating rigorous compliance with the Public Law Outline (PLO) in public law children proceedings. The note, issued by Mr Justice MacDonald and effective from 28 November 2024, aims to address London's outlier status in case duration and hearing numbers. Key changes include limiting cases to three hearings as prescribed by the PLO (save where demonstrably necessary to deal with the case justly), stringent scrutiny of urgent applications and a more restrictive approach to ordering further assessments. The practice note emphasises effective case management hearings, limits expert evidence to what is 'necessary' and effective issues resolution hearings. It also outlines stricter enforcement of case management directions, with potential consequences for non-compliance, including costs orders and professional misconduct considerations.

Family weekly highlights—28 November 2024

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of the launch of the domestic abuse protection order pilot, Family Public Law release note 5 of 2024 and speeches by Lord Justice Jackson and Mr Justice MacDonald. A new local practice note enforcing strict adherence to the Public Law Outline in London family courts is considered. Recent judgments on the separate representation of children following a 1980 Hague Convention return decision and charging orders, interest on arrears and the application of the fixed costs regime are also set out.

Further details of the domestic abuse protection order pilot

The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have introduced the domestic abuse protection order (DAPO) pilot from 27 November 2024, aiming to provide enhanced safeguards for victims of all forms of domestic abuse. DAPOs, to be issued by family, civil, and criminal courts, will have no time restrictions and cover physical, psychological, stalking, and coercive control. Initially launched in Greater Manchester and the three London boroughs of Croydon, Bromley and Sutton, DAPOs allow for immediate police intervention and longer-term protection. Notably, family courts can impose electronic tagging in serious cases. As well as imposing exclusion zones, DAPOs can mandate positive requirements such as attendance at a behaviour change programme. Breaching an order will be a criminal offence carrying a maximum five-year prison sentence. The MoJ has confirmed that DAPOs will also be available in Cleveland and North Wales from early 2025 ahead of a national rollout.

Charging orders, interest on arrears and the application of the fixed costs regime (GH v H)

Family analysis: On the wife’s application to make an interim charging order final, the court made the order final but between doing so and sealing the order, the judge concluded that there were three aspects of his decision that needed to be elaborated on further, which were whether the court had power to make a charging order on the application of one of the parties to financial remedy proceedings to secure a debt owed to a third party (namely the parties’ daughter), whether interest had accrued on the unpaid periodical payments and whether the fixed costs regime in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) at CPR Part 45 in relation to the making of a final charging applied in this case. The decision has implications regarding who can apply for a charging order for a debt owed to a third party under a financial remedy order and for the recovery of costs when enforcing a financial remedy order by way of legal charge. Lottie Tyler, legal director at Weightmans LLP, considers the issues.