In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the donor of the power of attorney has mental capacity to act in the administration of an estate and is at least 18 years old. The key question in terms of who has authority to deal with the administration of an intestate estate is whether a grant of letters of administration has been issued. If the grant of letters of administration has not yet been issued to the attorney, then the donor (ie the individual entitled to take the grant under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR 1987), SI 1987/2024,

The below is an amended version of the section ‘What happens if the main applicant switches into another route?’ in Practice Note: Partners of work, investment and study migrants, which covers the broad position where the main applicant is switching into a work route. However, as explained below, the position for dependants of persons switching into Student is less clear cut. Note that this does not discuss the eligibility/validity requirements for an extension of stay as a partner or child of a Student. See Practice Note: Student: eligibility—Dependants. The relevant rules and legislation would appear to require that all dependants should switch at the same time, even if they have sufficient extant permission for the remaining time that they wish to be in the UK, or to take them to settlement. Once their main applicant partner no longer has permission in the initial route, then the dependent partner no longer meets the requirements

For the purpose of this Q&A we have assumed that this transaction meets the requirements of Schedule 2A to Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) such that there is a pre-completion transaction (PCT) which is a treated as a ‘qualifying sub-sale’ within the terms of that Schedule. We also assume that the transaction is not linked to any other transactions and the parties are not connected or acting on non-arm’s length terms. The purchaser (who would be treated as both ‘original purchaser’ and the transferor under the PCT rules) can make a claim for relief under FA 2003, Sch 2A, para 16. The relief applies (under sub-paragraph 1) if: ‘(a) the pre-completion transaction is a qualifying subsale, (b) the original

There are circumstances where an estate is not an excepted estate but an IHT account is still not required, including where the personal representatives are applying for a grant de bonis non, provided the property was within the operation of the previous grant. Form Cap A5C is used. See

By section 271(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the bankruptcy court may ‘dismiss the petition’ if it is satisfied that the debtor is able to pay all his debts taking into account his contingent and prospective liabilities. The very nature of the petition process is binary—whether a bankruptcy order

A marriage may be annulled either on the ground that it is void, or that it is voidable. Section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) sets out the grounds for a marriage being void. The grounds include either party being already lawfully married or a civil partner at the time of the marriage, and the marriage not being valid because either party is under the age of 16. The interpretation of MCA 1973, s 11 was considered in MA v JA and the Attorney General and in Akhter

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 provide that, unless an application has been made under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 7.19(1) (for the court to consider the making of a decree nisi) a party making an application for a matrimonial order may amend the application at any time before an answer has been filed. Where an application has been made under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 7.19(1), an amendment may not be made to an application except with the written consent of all the other parties or with permission from the court. Where the divorce is proceeding online (by electronic means) FPR 2010, PD 41A will also apply. FPR 2010, PD 41A sets out the types of applications that may proceed by electronic

It is assumed for the purposes of this Q&A that the applicant has not remarried or formed a subsequent civil partnership since the divorce. Family Procedure Rules 2010, SI 2010/2955, 9.4 provides as follows: ‘An application for a financial order may be made– (a) in an application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order; or (b) at any time after an application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order has been made.’ It is clear from this that the application for financial provision can be made at any time after a

Further/second petitions are dealt with in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 7.7, which provides that a person may not make more than one application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order in respect of the same marriage unless: • the first application has been dismissed or finally determined, or • the court gives permission Therefore that rule applies only to the person who has already issued a petition and not to the other party. In cases where a divorce petition has been issued, and the petitioner is proceeding slowly or not at all, the respondent may wish to take steps in an attempt to speed the process up. The respondent can seek to issue their own petition. Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) states that, provided one year has passed since the date of the marriage, a petition for

This Q&A deals with the issue whether an appeal in relation to a financial remedy order made in divorce proceedings can be brought before decree absolute is pronounced. The powers of the court to make orders for financial provision on divorce are available 'on granting a decree of divorce…or at any time thereafter…whether before or after the decree is made absolute'—see section 23(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) in relation to periodical payments and lump sum orders, MCA 1973, s 24(1) in relation to property adjustment orders/settlements, and MCA 1973, s 24B in relation to pension sharing orders. 'Decree of divorce' for such purposes must mean, by implication, a decree nisi. Accordingly financial remedy orders can be made after decree nisi and before decree absolute. However, the order cannot 'take effect' until decree absolute has been pronounced

As stated in Practice Note: Lease variations—surrender and re-grant issues, increasing the extent of the demise will amount to a surrender and re-grant. In this case,

The parties have agreed in the present case that the transferee will perform certain covenants. This Q&A is not concerned with the extent to which such obligations bind third parties. The burden of a positive covenant runs with the land in far more limited circumstances than the burden of one which is negative and which restricts the use to which the land can be put. In the present case, the transfer which purported to record the parties’ agreement appears by some oversight not to have done so. It has placed the positive obligations on the transferor rather than the transferee. There does not appear to have been a mistake on the part of the parties which might vitiate their agreement. They were