Charities—employment law

Volunteers

Generally an individual is understood to be a volunteer if they are not obliged to work but agree to perform work for which they are not paid. Without consideration there can be no contract (whether as an employee or as a worker). However, they may be reimbursed expenses that they have genuinely incurred with losing their status as a volunteer. As a volunteer an individual can come and go as they please.

Before taking on a volunteer there may be a number of issues to consider including whether criminal record and/or immigration checks should be undertaken.

There is no requirement to have an agreement with a volunteer. However, the existence of an agreement between a volunteer and an organisation does not automatically mean that it amounts to a contract of employment. A volunteer agreement can, however, be useful for the purposes of setting out what an organisation will provide and what it expects of its volunteers.

See Practice Note: Volunteers.

Employee handbooks

Certain aspects of the employment relationship have to be covered by a written statement of particulars of employment that is given to the employee.

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 Private Client News

Private Client weekly highlights—9 October 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) analysis of In the Estate of Kathleen Coady, a decision on whether a Will signed under coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions was valie; (2) Ivey v Lythgoe, a contentious probate case in which the court ordered compulsory mediation; (3) National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Gas Corp Ltd, where the court held that a declaration of trust signed by agent did not defeat a claim for a transaction at undervalue; (4) publication of an updated version of the Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation; (5) Armstrong v Armstrong, which concerned satisfaction of the equity arising from proprietary estoppel, with an alternative award under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and (6) analysis of Aubrey Weis v HMRC, in which the High Court permitted the taxpayer to bring a judicial review claim against HMRC in respect of his historical domicile status.

Question of the week: In the context of a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, if the three children of the deceased are residuary beneficiaries (which includes the entire net estate), if one adult child brings a family provision claim, are they likely to be successful given that the Will provides for them to be treated equally with the other children?

This Q&A considers whether, in the context of a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, if the 3 children of the Deceased are residuary beneficiaries (which includes the entire net estate), if one adult child brings a family provision claim, are they likely to be successful given that the Will provides for them to be treated equally with the other children.

Compulsory mediation and costs-only parties in probate dispute (Ivey v Lythgoe)

Private Client analysis: In Ivey & Others v Lythgoe and another, the High Court considered a dispute over the validity and rectification of two Wills made by David Ivey, who died in 2023. The claimants, his nephews and niece, argued that a 2009 Will prepared by Trust Inheritance Ltd did not reflect his true intentions and was the result of professional negligence. They alleged that the company misinterpreted David’s instructions, wrongly excluding intended beneficiaries. The court refused to join the company as a costs-only party under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), holding that negligence must first be established. Instead, it ordered consolidation of the probate and negligence claims under CPR 3.1(2)(h), recognising the factual overlap. The court also directed the company to participate in mediation under CPR 3.1(2)(o), emphasising the importance of alternative dispute resolution. The case also highlights the duty of care owed by Will-writing professionals and the procedural tools available to manage overlapping claims efficiently. Written by Jacob Ashforth, associate, and Madeleine Chambers, trainee solicitor at Burges Salmon LLP.

Armstrong v Armstrong (remedy)—satisfying the equity arising from proprietary estoppel, with an alternative award under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Private Client analysis: Having found that the claimant had established his claims in proprietary estoppel and under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) at trial (Armstrong v Armstrong [2024] EWHC 2989 (Ch)), the court went on to consider the appropriate remedy, aiming to achieve as clean a break as possible between members of the same farming family whose business affairs were closely entwined. The Court also considered the appropriate award under the I(PFD)A 1975 in the alternative, in case the finding of an estoppel should be overturned upon appeal. Written by William Moffett, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.