There are two classes of family members of EU nationals under Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizens' Directive): • 'family members'—who benefit in full from the Citizens' Directive as of right, and • individuals in 'durable relationships' with an EU national and 'other family members'—Member States are required to 'facilitate…entry and residence' for these persons in accordance with their national legislation This Practice Note covers ‘family members’ (as defined under Article 2 of the Citizens’ Directive). For details of the law relating to durable partners and ‘other family members’, see Practice Note: 'Durable relationships’ and ‘other family members’ of EU nationals—definitions and rights of entry and residence. Note that throughout the term 'EU nationals' also includes nationals of the countries in the European Economic Area (EEA), which include the EU Member States as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Switzerland is party to the Agreement between the EU and the Confederation of Switzerland with free movement rules which are very similar to the rules contained under the Citizens’ Directive. For

The term ‘family office’ embraces a range of situations and there is no single accepted definition. However, the Family Firm Institute see a family office as: ‘A separate entity apart from the operating business (and sometimes created with the assets realised after the sale of a family enterprise) consisting of a diversified wealth portfolio held for the benefit of the family’ (Family Enterprise; understanding Families in Business and Families of Wealth, Wiley 2014 (not reported by Lexis+®)) Family offices are almost exclusively the province of high net worth and, more likely, ultra high net worth families with a diversity of assets and complex affairs. This complexity carries with it the potential for conflict. However, with a carefully thought out structure underpinned by a sound strategy and family governance mechanisms, a family office can provide significant benefits. These are not only for the family members concerned but also, through their collective philanthropic activity, wider society. Several features are likely to be present in a family office: • a portfolio of investments outside a core family business (often

West Yorkshire Joint Services has reported that five members of an extended family who ran an online counterfeit clothing operation have been ordered to pay back the proceeds of their crime at a hearing at Bradford Crown Court. An investigation by West Yorkshire Trading Standards found the family responsible for an industrial-scale screen printing operation in which the registered trademarks of leading music artists, bands and sports teams were illegally printed onto clothing and distributed globally via eBay and Amazon. The five family members were each sentenced in February 2019, each receiving a two year custodial sentence suspended for two years with a requirement to undertake 300 hours unpaid work. The court found the family had benefited by a total of £1,797,559.16 and ordered them to pay confiscation orders totalling £1,513,163.49 which represented the total of their available assets.

Procedural guides provide a step-by-step guide on a wide range of family law matters, including emergency procedures, divorce, cohabitants, children proceedings, financial provision, international and enforcement. Each guide also includes links to related content including Practice Notes, forms, cases, Precedents and legislation. For client guides, which are precedent letters on a wide range of family law issues that may be sent directly by the family law practitioner to a client, see Practice Note: Family client guides. For Family flowcharts in Lexis+® UK covering a wide range of family

This Practice Note summarises the key legal elements of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and explains the position regarding jurisdiction, enforcement, recognition and procedure in relation to the main types of family proceedings. It provides guidance as to the applicability of key EU instruments in matrimonial, civil partnership and financial remedy proceedings, children proceedings, proceedings for protection from domestic abuse and requests under the Taking of Evidence Regulation. It also covers the key procedural changes before and after implementation period (IP) completion day (11pm on 31 December 2020). On 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be a Member State of the EU and stopped participating in its political institutions and governance structures. In accordance with Part 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement, exit day marked the commencement of an 11-month implementation period during which the UK continued to be treated by the EU as a Member State for many purposes. See Practice Note: Brexit—introduction to the Withdrawal Agreement. The implementation period ran from 11pm on 31 January 2020 (exit day) until 11pm on 31 December

Private Client analysis: The claimants were five siblings who claimed various beneficial interests in four properties (the ‘Properties’). The defendant, their elder brother, stated that the intention within the family had always been that he, as the eldest, would hold the beneficial titles. The claimants made their claim on the bases of express trust, constructive trust of the type found in De Bruyne v De Bruyne and common intention constructive trust. There were also cross claims for account in regard to rental monies associated with the Properties and a counterclaim for damages for failure to collect rent and install tenants. The claimants were successful on almost every basis. Written by Adam Stewart-Wallace, barrister at Ten Old Square.

A claim brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) which enables certain categories of people, who were financially dependant on the deceased, to bring a claim against their estate for reasonable financial provision. The deceased must have been domiciled in England and Wales when they died. A Family provision claim may also be referred to as a 1975 Act claim or an Inheritance Act claim.

Section 1(1)(e) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) is the catch-all provision and can be used if the other criteria do not fit a potential claimant. The basis of a claim under this section is hampered by the necessity to prove that the claimant: '… immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased.' Perhaps in recognition of the potential difficulties that this might raise, from 1 October 2014, the Inheritance and Trustee's Powers Act 2014 has provided assistance by qualifying the proof required: ‘a person is to be treated as being maintained by the deceased (either wholly or partly, as the case may be) only if the deceased was making a substantial contribution in money or money's worth towards the reasonable needs of that person, other than a contribution made for full valuable consideration pursuant to an arrangement of a commercial nature’ 'being maintained' I(PFD)A 1975, s 1(3) is the only reference to the meaning of the

Where the court is satisfied that reasonable financial provision has not been made for an applicant, it has power to make an order under section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) for: • periodic payments • payment of a lump sum • the transfer of property • the settlement of specified property • the variation of an ante or post-nuptial settlement • variation of the trusts on which the estate is held In practice, the most common order is for the payment of a lump sum to the applicant. The basis for any award is that of ‘reasonable financial provision’. For a spouse or civil partner, ‘reasonable financial provision’ means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a spouse or civil partner to receive, whether or not required for their maintenance. Such provision can therefore include provision of a capital nature, ie provision that is not merely limited to providing for their regular income

Child of the deceased Definition of ‘child’ A child of the deceased is an eligible claimant under section 1(1)(c) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975). I(PFD)A 1975, s 25(1) defines a child as including an illegitimate child and a child en ventre sa mere (ie in the womb) at the date of death of the deceased. The definition of a child includes an adult and/or married child. A child of the deceased? There may be issues concerning whether the child is a child of the deceased. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008), the general position is that if a child is carried by a woman as a result of placing an embryo in her or sperm and eggs or artificial insemination and at that time: • the woman is married and the embryo was not brought about with the sperm of her husband, he is treated as the father unless it is shown that he did not consent to the creation of the

Introduction The conduct of the party who makes a claim for financial provision has always been a relevant matter. Section 1(6) of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 (I(FP)A 1938), as amended, directed the court to have regard to ‘the conduct of the applicant in relation to the deceased and otherwise…’ Although section 3(1)(g) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) does not specifically refer to conduct towards the deceased, it has most often been, in practice, the claimant’s conduct towards the deceased which has influenced the court in deciding both whether the disposition of the deceased’s estate has failed to make reasonable provision and, if so, in what manner and to what extent it should exercise its discretion. Because the conduct of anyone involved, in whatever role, in a family provision claim is a strongly emotive issue, it is important for the practitioner handling the claim to be aware that conduct rarely has a decisive, or even a significant influence on the outcome of such claims, and to make clear

Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (IPDFA 1975) have one unusual feature in that the legislation underpinning such claim provides a six-month deadline (broadly speaking) from the date of probate. I(PFD)A 1975, s 4, states that: 'An application for an order under section 2 of this Act shall not, except with the permission of the court, be made after the end of the period of six months from the date on which representation with respect to the estate of the deceased is first taken out (but nothing prevents the making of an application before such representation is first taken out).' This section has given rise to reported judgments in two main circumstances: • where a potential claimant has not issued their claim within the six-month deadline because, for example, they were not aware of it or they chose to proceed in a different manner initially, and, then, they subsequently need to seek the permission of the court to issue proceedings after the six-month period; and