Entitlement to the estate

Entitlement under a Will

Where the deceased left a valid Will, the executors must identify which beneficiaries are entitled to which property. Unless there is a contrary intention in the Will, then as to:

•
identifying the property, the Will speaks and takes effect as if it had been executed immediately before the death of the testator
•
identifying the beneficiaries, the Will speaks from the date of execution

A person may be disqualified from taking under a Will if:

•
they have induced by undue influence or fraud the making of the gift to them
•
by their criminal act they have caused the death of the testator
•
they or their spouse or civil partner have witnessed the Will (subject to exceptions)

If a person lacks or is suspected to lack the capacity to deal with a legacy under a Will it might be wise to consider applying to the Court of Protection for the appointment of a deputy.

A beneficiary must survive the testator or fulfil a condition, if appropriate, in order to take a gift under that testator's Will. If they predecease,

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

Government responds to 2024 MLR consultation

HM Treasury (HMT) has published the government’s response to the 2024 consultation on the Money Laundering Regulations (MLRs), detailing changes that will be made to the MLRs to close loopholes, clarify requirements and ensure customer due diligence is targeted at high-risk activity. A draft Statutory Instrument will be published for technical feedback in due course, and laid before Parliament later in 2025 if parliamentary time allows. The government says other issues will be addressed through guidance, in collaboration with supervisors, to ensure a consistent, risk-based approach.

Private Client weekly highlights—17 July 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Legislation Day is on 21 July 2025; (2) the ICAEW has launched a consultation on proposed probate registration fees for 2026; (3) analysis of Rogers v Wills, a rare example of the court finding a contract for care existed between family members; (4) the Investing and Saving Alliance proposes alternative approaches to the government’s pension IHT reforms; (5) Marcus v Marcus in which the appeal court upheld the decision that the word ‘children’ included a non-biological son; and (6) analysis of Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in which the court rules on the meaning of ‘place of residence’ in a bankruptcy jurisdiction appeal.

Question of the week: If an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document? Or would rectification be required?

This Q&A considers whether, if an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document, or would rectification be required.

FTT considers late appeal applications (Stenhouse and another v HMRC; Abbey Healthcare (East Kilbride) Ltd and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Stenhouse and another v HMRC and Abbey Healthcare (East Kilbride) Ltd and others v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed late appeal applications by the taxpayers against discovery assessments and closure notices, highlighting weaknesses in HMRC’s approach.