Validity of Wills

Validity of Wills

CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): For Wills made on or after 31 January 2020, the formal requirement for a valid Will to be witnessed in the presence of two witnesses includes both physical and virtual presence, to allow Wills to be validly witnessed remotely by way of video conference. For the latest guidance on this temporary change (which takes effect for Wills made up to and including 31 January 2024), see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Wills [ARCHIVED]. This change is introduced by the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020, SI 2020/952 which amends Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837), s 9 and the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) Order 2022, SI 2022/18. Note that the guidance below relates to WA 1837 in its unchanged form. For details of the new rules and the changes to WA 1837, s 9, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—remote witnessing of Wills [ARCHIVED] [ARCHIVED].The WA 1837Amendment Order, SI 2020/952 was expressed to apply to Wills and codicils made between 31 January 2020

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—22 May 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Law Commission publishes its recommendations to reform the Wills Act 1837; (2) Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z, in which the court granted a parental order despite applicants’ advanced ages; (3) HMRC issues first individual tax avoidance stop notices under POTAS regime; (4) further analysis of Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC, in which the court confirmed when a settlement is ‘made’ for the purposes of excluded property; (5) Louwman v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, a decision of the FTT holding that OIGs and AIPs arising in offshore protected trusts are not protected foreign source income; (6) Moran v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, where the taxpayer was found liable under the transfer of assets abroad regime for the rent-free occupation of a house; and (7) the Data (Use and Access) Bill reaches its final legislative stages.

HMCTS publishes blog post announcing probate guidance podcast

HMCTS has published a blog post announcing a new podcast episode about probate application procedures. The blog introduces the episode featuring HMCTS experts discussing both online and paper-based probate applications, covering application requirements, common errors, and processing timelines. This forms part of HMCTS's ongoing efforts to provide accessible information about court processes.

Question of the week: If the sole trustee of a trust appoints an additional trustee to sell trust property, in order to overreach the beneficial interest in the property, do the beneficiaries of the trust have the right to receive information about the identity of the additional trustee?

This Q&A considers whether a beneficiary of a trust has a right to receive information, on request, about the identity of the trustees.

All in? Court confirms when a settlement is 'made' for the purposes of excluded property (Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC)

Private Client analysis: This case considered the meaning of 'relevant property' under the settlements regime of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and, in particular, the time at which this definition is to be tested. The question arose as to whether the trustees of an offshore trust established by a non-UK domiciled settlor were subject to the UK settlements regime in respect of property added to the trust after the settlor became deemed domiciled in the UK, or whether they were exempt from such charges as the trust consisted solely of excluded property. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that whether trust property is excluded property is based on the status of the trust at the time that it was established, not at the time that the property in question was added to the settlement. As a result, the trust in this case did consist solely of excluded property and no inheritance tax (IHT) charges arose as a result of either the ten-year anniversary or capital distributions. The FTT was also asked to consider whether their jurisdiction was appellate, or supervisory only. The FTT held that, while their jurisdiction was supervisory, the questions raised by the trustees were relevant in establishing whether HMRC had acted reasonably and that the outcome (ie that the paid IHT should be refunded and that no further IHT was due) would be the same in either case. Written by Katherine Willmott, senior associate solicitor at Foot Anstey LLP.