Charities—execution of documents

Execution formalities—non-Companies Act companies

'Non-Companies Act companies' are corporations created by statute such as local authorities, building societies and incorporated charities.

Any person who is authorised whether expressly or impliedly to act on behalf of a non-Companies Act company can contract on behalf of the various types of corporation.

See Practice Note: Execution formalities—non-Companies Act corporations.

Execution formalities—unincorporated associations

An unincorporated association has no legal identity, which means it cannot enter into contracts in its own name. As such, an unincorporated association has no rights and cannot perform duties or own property. Property ‘belonging’ to an unincorporated association will be vested in the leading members of the organisation who act as trustees and hold property on trust for the remaining members of the organisation.

Execution formalities applying to unincorporated associations will be the same as those applying to private

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.