When an individual dies they are considered to have made a 'transfer of value' equal to the value of their estate immediately before death. This transfer is chargeable to inheritance tax (IHT). This potential tax liability and their responsibility to report the value of the estate to HMRC (whether directly to HMRC or via the probate registry, depending on whether or not the estate is an 'excepted estate') is one reason the personal representatives (PRs) must value the contents of an estate. The PRs must first identify the assets and liabilities in the deceased's 'estate'. This is defined for IHT purposes as 'the aggregate of all the property to which they are beneficially entitled' immediately before death. It therefore encompasses all property from which they were entitled to benefit or enjoy. It does not include, for example, a life insurance policy written in trust for

If a defendant successfully defends a claim, the starting point is that the claimant will be liable to pay their costs of the claim. However, CPR 44.2(1)(a) provides the court with the discretion ‘as to whether costs are payable by one party to another’. In a multi-defendant case this provides the court with the discretion to make an unsuccessful defendant, rather than the claimant, liable for the successful defendant’s costs. The court may

This Q&A assumes that this question relates to the service of a notice under section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) by personal representatives (PRs) on behalf of a deceased tenant (under LRHUDA 1993, s 39(3A)) and the restriction in LRHUDA 1993, s 42(4A) that such a notice may not be given by the PRs of a tenant later than two years after the grant of probate or letters of administration. Chapter II of Part I of the Leasehold

This Q&A considers a tenant who is in a tenancy in common with another tenant, who petitions for bankruptcy after exchange and before the completion of a sale of the property that the two tenants own. It looks at the first tenant’s liability to the buyer and his or her recourse against the other tenant in common if the buyer serves a notice to complete. In relation to contractual liability, this will depend on the terms of the contract. For example, where the sellers are jointly and severally liable, the non-defaulting party would also be liable to the buyers. For

There is no provision in Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955 for the ‘revival’ of a petition that has been withdrawn by consent, nor have we been able to locate relevant case law in this regard, including on the issue of ‘misrepresentation’, which in the scenario described may require the original petitioner to adduce evidence if their position is that the original respondent misrepresented their reasons for seeking a reconciliation. In those circumstances, it would be prudent to seek advice from specialist counsel who may be fully apprised as to the facts of the case and the evidence available. A preliminary

The position regarding an application for financial orders subsequent to the remarriage of a party is provided for by section 28(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) which states: ‘If after the grant of a decree [an order or decree] dissolving or annulling a marriage either party to that marriage remarries [whether at any time before or after the commencement of this Act] [or forms a civil partnership], that party shall not be entitled to apply, by reference to the grant of that decree [that order or decree], for a financial provision order in his or her favour, or for a property adjustment order, against the other party

Highways can be stopped up if the area of highway is no longer needed or when the land is needed for a development to take place. When a

This response deals with the situation where someone is claiming to have the benefit as an overriding interest of a business lease of five years and of chancel repair liability, both of which existed prior to the land being registered but neither of which was registered against the title, and considers whether they could be overriding interests. Chancel repair liability Chancel repair liability historically can be difficult to identify or establish as there is no central register which contains all of the liabilities (see Practice Note: Chancel repair liability). Previously, section

We have assumed that: ‘…the member of the RAC has provided a written nomination to the trustees of the retirement annuity contract, requesting (but without imposing any legal obligation) that the trustees distribute the death benefits to the trustees of the pilot trust. both the RAC and the SIPP are subject to the registered pension scheme regime established under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004 this

Under section 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993): ‘(1) A claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement with respect to any premises is made by the giving of notice of the claim under this section… (3) The initial notice must— (a) specify and be accompanied by a plan showing— (i) the premises of which the freehold is proposed to be acquired by virtue of section 1(1), (ii) any property of which the freehold is proposed to be acquired by virtue of section 1(2)(a), and (iii) any property over which it is proposed that rights (specified in the notice) should be granted in connection with the acquisition of the freehold of the specified premises or of any such property so far as falling within section 1(3)(a) [Note: this reference in the statute

Public Law analysis: The Police Service of Northern Ireland had a policy of taking photographs, fingerprints and a DNA sample and profile (biometric data) from all persons arrested for a recordable offence and retaining that data indefinitely for those convicted (the policy). The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), applying principles established in its decision in Marper v UK, held that the policy amounted to a disproportionate interference with Mr Gaughran’s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It held that the indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention without reference to the seriousness of the offence or the need for indefinite retention and in the absence of any real possibility of review, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests. Written by Jonathan Lewis, barrister, at Henderson Chambers.

The court has determined the mesne profits payable until the tenants vacate. Therefore, the first question is whether the court has any jurisdiction to vary its order if the value of those profits increased? We are not aware of any direct authority on this point. The court has power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary final orders. However, the case law is clear that this power will only be used in exceptional circumstances to vary final sealed orders–see Vodafone Group PLc v IPcom GmbH and Co KG. It