This Q&A considers the steps that may be taken by the resident parent in the event that they wish to suspend the contact provided for under an interim child arrangements order after the non-resident parent breaches a non-molestation order by being verbally abusive. Were the resident parent to suspend contact unilaterally, in breach of the child arrangements order, they would be at risk of an application for enforcement by the non-resident parent pursuant to sections 11J–11P of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). ChA 1989, s 11J provides the court with the power to make an enforcement order when it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has failed to comply with a provision of the child arrangements order. There is scope for

The personal representatives (PRs) are usually aware early on that a claim may be made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975). The PRs may be told by a family member or a beneficiary and they will usually receive a letter of claim. Once the PRs are aware of a claim or potential claim against the estate, they are on notice and must not do anything to prejudice the claim. The PRs should act prudently and

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Following a pedestrian RTA leaving him with orthopaedic fractures, a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), cognitive impairments and psychiatric consequences, the claimant sought further interim payments in the sum of £160,000 to fund ongoing treatment needs, especially a trial of independent living (TIL). Contributory negligence and quantum both remained in issue. The High Court evaluated that ‘a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment’ in respect of past losses would be around 50% of past loss and PSLA, allowing £73,000 (less the £13,500 already paid). While this award fell short of a ‘high proportion’, Master Fontaine felt it appropriate to reflect the significant uncertainties in the case. The Master’s conservative evaluation of the likely trial award excluded the cost of a TIL from the neuro-rehabilitative sum anticipated as necessary; absorbed the risk that the claimant would be deported following failure of his asylum claim; and was discounted by half given the defendants’ allegations of contributory negligence. Written by Lionel Stride, barrister, Temple Garden Chambers (TGC).

Section 15 Wills Act 1837 The attesting witnesses, the husbands and wives or civil partners of attesting witnesses, cannot take under a beneficial gift contained in the testamentary instrument so attested. That part of the Will which contains the nullified gift is not disregarded if it is necessary to have regard to it for the purpose of ascertaining what is the nature of other gifts in the Will, or in what event other gifts are intended to take effect. But the gift as regards the person who attests the Will or their spouse or

In Bernstein v Jacobson, the court confirmed that an estate that is still being administered may be varied under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 (VTA 1958). It would be possible to apply to the court to vary the statutory legacies under the statutory trusts of an intestate estate under sections 46 and 47 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925) for persons who would benefit where those persons are minor, unborn or unascertained beneficiaries. HMRC takes the view in IHTM35045 that a parent or a guardian is unable to effect a variation on behalf of a minor or an unborn beneficiary so may make an application to the court for approval under VTA 1958. HMRC will not consider a variation as accepted within section 142 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) until the conclusion of any enquiry on exploitation

This response looks at the situation when a known suspect is considered ‘unavailable’ for the purposes of police identification procedures, and what formality is required in the nature of a request made to consent to identification procedures. Availability An investigating officer who knows the identity of a suspect may intend to carry out formal identification procedures with a view to relying upon any positive identification by a witness of the suspect. The procedures to be followed are set out in PACE Code D (referring to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), by section 66 of which the Code is issued) (23 February 2017). This provides safeguards against mistaken

Where an investment is held by two people as joint tenants, on the death of one of the parties, the investment passes to the survivor absolutely. If the survivor lacks capacity and a deputy has been appointed by the Court of Protection to manage the survivor’s property and financial affairs, the

A compulsory purchase order (CPO) needs to be served upon all persons having an interest, or having power to sell and convey, the land compulsorily acquired. A person with an interest in the land the subject of a CPO, as defined in the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (CPA 1965), may be entitled to compensation for any recoverable loss or damage. Hence, a landowner who does not physically occupy a property, but has an interest in it, is entitled to compensation. There are aspects of compensation

Where an investor contributes property to an existing unit trust, and the property being transferred consists of chargeable securities which would normally be subject to stamp duty reserve tax (SDRT), no SDRT arises on that transfer where the transfer is made on a pro rata in specie basis—in other words, where the property transferred is both in proportion to and in the form of the property already held by the unit trust. HMRC gives the example (in its Manuals at STSM107030) of a unit trust which holds 100 ABC shares and 200 DEF shares. Where an investor transfers a further 100 ABC and 200 DEF shares (or, say, 50 ABC and 100 DEF) the contribution is regarded as pro rata in specie, as it proportionately matches the investments already within the fund. There is no specific exemption from SDRT provided

It is assumed in this Q&A that A has died appointing B (the Swedish resident) as a personal representative who needs to swear the oath leading to a grant. We direct you

We have assumed that: • the trust in question is fully discretionary in nature • the UK-resident beneficiary is neither the settlor of the trust nor a minor • the trust is not settlor-interested The remittance basis applies to ‘foreign income and gains’ which are defined in section 809Z7(2) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007) as follows: ‘An individual’s “foreign income and gains” for a tax year are— (a) the individual’s relevant foreign earnings for that year, (b) the individual’s foreign specific employment income for that year, (c) the individual’s relevant foreign income for that year, and (d) the individual's foreign chargeable gains for that year.’ Only (c) and (d) will be considered for the purposes of this query. Relevant

Paragraph 26 of the Electronic Communications Code (set out in Schedule 3A Pt 1–Schedule 3A Pt 17 to the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003)) (the Code) provides for the grant to telecoms operators of interim rights under the Code. See, generally, Practice Note: New Electronic Communications Code—Code rights, in particular the main section ‘Interim Code rights (Part 4)’. By CA 2003, Sch 3A Pt 4, para 26(3), ‘the court may make an order under this paragraph if (and only if) the operator has given the