A 'pilot trust' is a trust set up during the lifetime of the settlor, ordinarily as a discretionary trust in order to provide the necessary flexibility for its purpose. That purpose is to try and circumvent inheritance tax provisions in respect of 'related trusts', ie trusts that are all established at the same time. The relevance of the relevant trusts rule is that such trusts all share one nil rate band for inheritance tax purposes. A pilot trust is usually set up some time before death with a small amount of money and a legacy in the Will leaving monies to the trust. A pilot trust set up in this way would not be a related trust. See Practice Note: Pilot trusts—IHT. The benefit

A named executor may act in the administration of a deceased's estate even where the estate has a potential claim against that executor, but this is subject to certain limitations and considerations. The executor's role may be challenged or restricted if there is a conflict of interest or if their actions are deemed to be detrimental to the proper administration of the estate. In the case of Osborne v Osborne, the court removed an executor due to an actual conflict of interest between their duties as an executor and their personal interests in the estate. The court

Practice Note: Jurisdiction in probate matters outlines that for probate purposes, the UK consists of three jurisdictions: England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. By virtue of section 2 of the Wills Act 1861, a Will made (before 1 January 1964) in the UK by a British subject, wherever domiciled at the time of making the same or at the time of death, is held to be well executed as to personal estate if valid by the law of that part of the UK where it was made. Following

The process of divorce involves the granting of a decree of divorce nisi, which can subsequently be made absolute. Upon the making of decree absolute, the marriage legally comes to an end. However the legal formalities of ending a marriage do not end the financial aspects of the union. It is, in principle, open to a party to apply for financial remedy at any time, including many years in the future, section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) providing that the court may make an order on the granting of degree or at any time thereafter, although the longer that an application is left, the less likely it is that a substantive award will be made, see generally, Wyatt v Vince and A v B (No. 2). MCA 1973, s

The powers of the court to order financial provision upon divorce are contained in Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). See Practice Note: Financial proceedings—orders that can be made by the court. The powers are largely positive/dispositive, ie the payment of money (maintenance or lump sums) or transfer/settlement of property by one party to the other, rather than orders to prevent such relief from being granted. There is a specific power, however, to make an order preventing a party from bringing applications in the future (to impose a clean break), contained in MCA 1973, s 25A(3). For the principles applying to clean breaks, see Practice Note: General principles—spousal and civil partner periodical payments, in particular the section entitled Clean break considerations. MCA 1973,

It is possible for the court to correct an irregularity in a final divorce order. This power is provided for by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 29.16 (the slip rule) or FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 4.1(6) (power to vary or revoke). An application under the slip rule may be made without notice, but is perhaps better suited to minor corrections, for example, a spelling mismatch between the marriage certificate and the final order. It is suggested that in the circumstances

The procedure for divorce and other matrimonial causes is covered by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 7. If the original application for a divorce has not been dismissed, or finally determined by the court, that original petition still remains ‘live’ despite the lapse in time. If an application for decree absolute is lodged more than 12 months after the decree nisi, an explanation in writing must be lodged with the application, FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 7.32(3)) setting out the following: • the reasons for the delay • confirmation as to whether the parties have lived with each other since the decree nisi and, if so, between what dates—the court has a discretion as to whether a decree absolute

The requirement for budget discussion reports CPR 3.13(2) requires parties who have filed and exchanged costs budgets under CPR 3.13(1) to file an agreed budget discussion report no later than seven days before the first case management conference. The exact wording of the rule is ‘In the event that a party files and exchanges a budget under paragraph (1), all other parties, not being litigants in person, must file an agreed budget discussion report …’ Contents of the report The budget discussion report must set out in respect of each phase of the proceedings, those figures which are agreed, those figures which are disputed and a brief summary of the grounds of dispute. For further

The application of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) generally applies equally to a ‘litigant in person’. In Re A, it was noted that ‘it is the obligation of someone who chooses to act as a litigant in person to acquaint himself with and to comply with the procedure and any relevant rules’. CPR 3.1A however considers the court’s approach to case management where at least one party is unrepresented and requires the court when exercising any power of case management, to have regard to the fact that at least one party is unrepresented (CPR 3.1A(2)) and adopt such procedure at any hearing as it considers appropriate to further the overriding objective (CPR 3.1A(4)). For further information regarding case management, see Practice Note: Litigants in person—case management and relief from sanctions and A Handbook

Background Under PD 16.2.2, a claim form ‘must include an address at which the claimant resides or carries on business’. If a claimant does not do so, the consequence is that after issue, the court will retain the claim form without serving it until either the address is supplied or the court has dispensed with the requirement: PD 16.2.5. Accordingly, it is not possible to ‘avoid’ this requirement. However, an application can be made for dispensation. Application for dispensation from the requirement A claimant can seek dispensation from the requirement under PD 16.2.5 to provide the address by

Following the revision to CPR 36 in April 2015, it is now clear that a Part 36 offer can be made in respect of a counterclaim (CPR 36.2(3)). The assumption may tend to be that the party making the Part 36 offer in respect of a counterclaim would be the defendant, making an offer to accept a payment in respect of their counterclaim. This does not mean, however, that lawyers haven’t struggled with the implications of this. An example decision

Nature and extent of rights of way In the case of an express grant of a right of way, the extent of the right granted depends on the express terms of the grant. A court will construe the language of the deed in the light of the circumstances and the intention of the parties at the time of the grant. If the scope of the words contained within the express easement do not expressly outline a right to turn, which appears to be the position from your question, then there will be no express right to turn. The general rule is that a right of way may only be used for gaining access to the land identified as the dominant tenement