STOP PRESS: As set out in a Written Statement on 18 December 2025, with effect from 26 November 2025, first living recipients of payments under a recognised infected blood compensation scheme are able to pass on some or all of their compensation payment during their lifetime as a ‘qualifying gift’. Provided that the qualifying gift is made within two years of 4 December 2025 (for compensation payments made before that date) or two years from the date of such compensation payment after that date, then it is treated as never having been part of their estate for IHT purposes. In a similar way to the operation of IHTA 1984, s 142, the qualifying gift must be recorded in writing and signed by the first living recipient, even where the gift has already been made. See: section 77 of the Finance Act 2026 and Policy paper: Inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments extension. Variations and other post-death rearrangements Although the terms of a testator’s Will or the provisions applicable on

An instrument of variation may be made to vary the disposition of an estate made by the deceased’s Will or on intestacy. It is often made by deed. There are formal requirements for such a variation to be effective, ie advantageous in most situations, for inheritance tax (IHT) and capital gains tax (CGT) purposes (under section 142 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and section 62(6) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) respectively)—including that the deed must be in writing, the deed must include the relevant statement that the statutory provisions are to apply, the variation must not be made in exchange for any extraneous consideration and the deed must be signed by all relevant parties, including the deceased’s personal representatives (PRs) where the variation results in further tax becoming due. For information on deeds of variation, see Practice Note: Variation of Will or intestacy after death. See also Practice Note: Post-death rearrangements. Precedent deed of variation Links to precedents for several options for a deed of variation

For information about what deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are and how they operate, see Practice Note: Deferred prosecution agreements. In what circumstances can a DPA be varied? The power to vary a DPA is contained in paragraph 10 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (CCA 2013). The terms of a DPA may need to be varied in two circumstances: • where the court has invited the parties to vary the DPA under the CCA 2013, Sch 17 Pt 1, para 9(3)(a), ie where the organisation has breached the DPA and the court would like the parties to agree proposals to remedy the organisation's failure to comply (for more information on breach of a DPA see Practice Notes: Financial penalties as a term of a DPA—Late payment and breach of a DPA and Breach of a DPA) • where variation of the DPA is necessary to avoid a failure by the organisation to comply with its terms in circumstances that were not, and could not have been, foreseen by the prosecutor or the organisation

This guide provides general information about variations made after a person’s death for non-professional personal representatives and bereaved family members. Your probate practitioner will be able to provide specific tailored advice based on your circumstances. When someone dies their estate (their property and other assets) will normally pass to their family or friends under their Will if they had one. If they did not leave a valid Will then the intestacy rules determine who inherits their estate. The intestacy rules may also apply to part of an estate if the Will does not effectively deal with all of the deceased’s property. However, sometimes the deceased’s Will or the intestacy rules do not produce an appropriate outcome for the beneficiaries and in that case, they might consider making a post-death variation. What is a post-death variation? A beneficiary cannot change the deceased’s Will itself, nor can they change the intestacy rules. However, they can alter what happens to the assets to which they are entitled to inherit after death by redirecting

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the court considered various points, including the claimants’ variation of a budget after trial, whether the claimants should be entitled to the benefits of CPR 36.17(4) having beaten their own Part 36 offers and the appropriate amount for a payment on account of costs. The court allowed an upward variation in relation to the trial preparation and trial, as the application had been made promptly and given there had been a significant development. However, the court rejected the upward variations for disclosure and witness evidence on the basis that the applications had not been made promptly and the claimants could not establish any oppressive behavior by the defendant. The court was not satisfied that it would be unjust to award the claimants the usual benefits of CPR 36.17(4) where they had made a reasonable offer before the proceedings had been issued. The claimants demonstrated a genuine intention to resolve the dispute. By contrast, the defendant showed no such intent. The court then awarded the claimants 55% of their incurred costs, 90% of the original budgeted costs and 80% of the upward variations. Written by Nicholas Lee, costs lawyer & mediator at Paragon Costs Solutions.

Family analysis: The child support maintenance case of SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions shows that the infinite variety of family arrangements will always create fresh litigation despite the efforts of legislators to provide a comprehensive code, says James Pirrie, director of Family Law in Partnership Ltd.

This Practice Note details the types of financial orders that can and cannot be varied by the court. It also sets out the powers of the court under section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the equivalent provisions under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004). It considers the types of variation applications to which the fast-track (shortened) procedure applies under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, together with relevant case law and how an order may be varied by agreement. By virtue of MCA 1973, s 31 and the corresponding provisions in CPA 2004, the court has the power to vary or discharge certain orders for financial relief, see: Orders that can be varied and Orders that cannot be varied. More rarely the court may suspend an order, or revive a suspended provision. This Practice Note sets out the general provisions that apply to an application to vary. For further practical guidance on specific types of financial orders, see Practice Notes: • General principles for maintenance pending suit—Variation

This document provides general guidance regarding an application to court to vary a financial order. Your family lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. What orders can the court vary? The court can vary the following types of order: • maintenance pending suit or interim maintenance • periodical payments or secured periodical payments (also known as maintenance orders)—this includes reducing or increasing the amount payable and the length of time for which it should be paid; the court can also replace a maintenance order with a capital order (ie capitalisation, see below) • lump sums payable by instalments—it is highly unlikely that the court will vary the total amount payable but it may alter the timing and/or amount of the instalments ordered • orders for sale—the court can alter the mechanics and timing of the order but not the underlying division of the proceeds of sale [An application to vary a periodical payments order must be made while the order is still in force. Provided the application is made during this period, the actual hearing may take

The changing of the contractual terms of a lease.

Changes made to the duration and or conditions of a person's leave to enter or to remain in the UK.

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 30 January 2024, marking the first review of trusts law in Scotland in over 100 years since the principal legislation, the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, was passed. Most of the provisions that affected trust law require further secondary legislation from Scottish Ministers to be brought into force. Most provisions relating to succession law came into effect on 30 April 2024, and some minor aspects on trusts came into force on 26 June 2024. See News Analysis: Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill passed. Practice Notes on areas of Scottish trusts and succession law will be updated further to reflect this new legislation. Under the common law, the opportunities for varying the terms or purposes of a trust are very limited once the trust has taken effect. If the trust is an inter vivos trust and is revocable, the truster can alter its terms at any time so long as they are sui juris. But the majority of inter vivos trusts

Variation of trusts It is open to a settlor to impose such trusts and confer such powers and discretions as they see fit. Consequently, the general rule is that the court has no inherent jurisdiction to vary the terms of a trust where those trusts are clearly expressed and valid. However, the court will vary a trust in certain circumstances. Under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 Under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 (VTA 1958), the court may by order approve any arrangement: ‘Where property, whether real or personal, is held on trusts arising, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under any will, settlement or other disposition.’ Persons on whose behalf the court may exercise jurisdiction The court may approve an arrangement on behalf of: • minors or persons otherwise lacking capacity • unascertained persons • unborns • discretionary beneficiaries under protective trusts Except in the case of discretionary beneficiaries under protective trusts, the court may only approve an arrangement if it 'would be for