Persons who can be appointed executors Under section 25 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, the executor(s) will be under strict duties to ascertain the assets and liabilities of the estate of the deceased, keep accounts and distribute the estate according to the terms of the Will and the law. It will therefore be very important who is appointed executor(s). A testator may, in effect, appoint any person(s) as their executor(s). This does not have to be a professionally qualified person but can be a spouse, child, relative or friend. The requirements for an executor to prove are that they must be at least 18 years of age and have capacity to act as such. Under section 114(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, probate shall not be granted to more than four persons. See, generally: Estate administration—overview

For the purposes of this Q&A it is assumed that B is also the remainderman beneficiary of the 50% interest in the property and therefore a beneficiary of the deceased’s estate. Provided that the Will is valid and validly executed, an executor’s authority derives from the Will itself and operates from the date of the testator’s death. The grant of probate serves to prove the executor’s authority as such. On that basis, each of the executors has authority to act in the deceased’s estate prior to obtaining the grant. For further information on an executor’s authority prior to the grant, see Practice

Conditions for making a variation and tax consequences A variation is an inter vivos transfer from a beneficiary of a deceased person. The beneficiary would be treated as making a transfer of value for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes were it not for section 142 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). A legatee may alter the effect of a Will or the intestacy provisions by passing to someone else any property that the operation of a Will or the law of intestacy gives them. The disposition must alter the destination of property in the deceased's

First, to deal with the possible implication that T made the Will when they were still with X, but then separated, and did not change their Will before they died: unless there are questions over the validity of the Will—or T and X had been married and then divorced—there is not much that can be done regarding the legacies or the choice of executor, without the consent of X (or without bringing a claim for financial provision as set out below). If the grant has not yet been taken out (and X has not yet ‘intermeddled’ in T’s estate), T’s relatives could contact X to ask them to renounce the executorship and even to disclaim X’s interest in the estate. If X were willing to renounce, then a simple deed of renunciation could be lodged at the Probate Registry.

We understand that a valid UK will would be recognised in the US, subject to the requirements of the state in which the assets are located.

The Q&A: Can a Will drafted in England and governed in English law be executed in Singapore? Are there any further legal requirements for executing a Will abroad? sets out the relevant considerations when a person domiciled in jurisdiction A but resident in jurisdiction B, wishes to

This Q&A assumes that: • T is the sole shareholder of the company • the properties held by the company are all situated in the UK T’s wishes can be carried out literally by leaving the shares on a trust, the terms of which would stipulate that the executor or trustee is to liquidate the company and distribute properties to specified beneficiaries. However, such an arrangement raises the following issues: • creating the trust over the shares is a chargeable transfer for the purposes of inheritance tax. The trust created will be within

As a life tenant of a share of the property, S is entitled to occupy the property, so long as the purposes of the trust include making the property available for their occupation, the property is available and suitable for occupation under section 12 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996). If S holds the remaining interest in the property, no one else will hold a right to reside there, although it is conceivable that there are other owners of the remaining share(s) of the property who also have a right of occupation under TOLATA 1996, s 12. TOLATA 1996, s 13 governs where there are more than one person with the right to occupy a property. Without any beneficial interest in the property, P does not have a right

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision on 3 September 2024; it is no longer maintaied. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by T&L Sugars Limited of the UK packaging and distribution site and business-to-consumer activities of Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland Limited from Tereos SCA. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in relation to the supply of multiple types of packaged sugar to business-to-consumer customers in the UK. Latest developments On 26 September 2024, the CMA published a notice (dated 25 September 2024) of a penalty imposed on Tereos SCA and Tereos United Kingdom and Ireland under section 110 of the Enterprise Act 2002 for failing to comply with a section 109 notice served by the CMA requiring the provision of certain minutes and internal documents in relation to board and corporate governance during the phase 2 investigation. The CMA imposed a fine of £25,000. Tereos responded to the notice, however, following further enquires from the CMA it was found that Tereos failed,

This Q&A have assumed that the remaindermen took their interests under T's Will as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. Where the Will or trust document directs an interest in capital for the purposes of benefiting a person of full capacity in some specified manner, subject to words of limitation in the trust, it confers on that beneficiary an absolute, vested interest in the capital. It gives that beneficiary the right to call for a transfer of the property. Where that beneficiary dies, the vested right to call for a transfer of the property passes to their personal representatives. Conversely, where by reason of words of limitation the right is not vested, it will not devolve to the beneficiaries’ estate but

A code of practice designed to help pension trustees identify key issues when moving assets to new investment managers, issued by a group of 17 transition management firms in October 2007.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 27 November 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition by T-Mobile NL of Tele2 NL (Case M.8792). The transaction concerns horizontal overlaps in the mobile telecommunications market in the Netherlands. Latest developments On 27 November 2018, the transaction was cleared unconditionally following an in-depth phase II investigation. Parties T-Mobile NL is a provider of telecommunication services to private and business customers in the Netherlands. It is a MNO with nationwide coverage over which it provides 2G, 3G, 4G and NarrowBand-Internet of Things (NB-IoT) mobile communication services. It also provides retail fixed services, including broadband Internet, TV and fixed telephony services based on wholesale access services. T-Mobile NL is a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom. Tele2 NL is a Dutch telecommunications provider. It is a 4G-only MNO, providing voice, data and messaging services, and also provides fixed broadband services in the Netherlands. Tele2 NL