Proceedings in respect of parental responsibilities and rights must comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels II bis). Generally, the courts of a Member State will have jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over a child who is habitually resident in that Member State at the time the court is seised. Article 66 of the Brussels II bis clarifies that where a Member State has two or more legal systems, as in the UK, the Brussels II bis applies in the different

CPR 19.12 (previously 19.8) exists to deal with the fact that a claim cannot be brought against a dead person, but can be brought against their estate. Where there has been a grant of probate or of letters of administration, the claim must be brought against the personal representatives (CPR 19.12(2)(a)). Where there has been no grant, the claim must be brought against 'the estate of the deceased' (CPR 19.12(2)(b)(i)) and the claimant must apply to the court for an order appointing a person to represent the estate of the deceased in the claim (CPR 19.12(2)(b)(ii)). Such an order does not constitute the person appointed as the personal representative,

It is assumed that the deputyship in question was in relation to P's property and affairs. A deputy has a duty to act only within the specific scope of the powers granted by the court, as set out in the order of appointment. Section 16(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) gives the court power to appoint a deputy to make decisions on P’s behalf in relation to matters concerning P’s personal welfare or property and affairs or both. In doing

This Q&A considers the position as regards a commercial lease which affords the tenant a right to break the lease. It assumes that a tenant wishes to serve a break notice but the party who granted the lease is not yet the registered proprietor. Break notice must be served on legal owner The starting point will be the terms of the lease. The tenant should review the wording of the break clause and the wording of any notice provisions in the lease and ensure they serve the notice in accordance with those terms. However, break notices are required to be served on the legal owner, ie

We do not have a Practice Note on the specific point raised in your query, but we refer you the below content which may assist you with your research. Country of origin and labelling requirements Generally, there is no overarching requirement to identify the country of origin on a label when selling goods in England and Wales. While there is no overarching requirement to include the country of origin on the label, there are sector specific rules that may require traders to do this. For example, the country of origin must be included on the label for certain meat and products where the origin of the food indicated is not the same as that of its primary ingredient. For more information on sector specific rules that apply to food, see Practice Note: Food information and food labelling

It is frequently the case, particularly in lettings of rooms in Houses in Multiple Occupation, that the rent reserved by the lease or tenancy agreement will be inclusive of services such as broadband, or water charges etc. The question is whether, if the tenant fails to pay the reserved rent, the landlord can suspend the provision of the inclusive services. As a matter of contract, the landlord has agreed to provide the tenant with exclusive occupation of the demised premises with the services agreed to be provided. The tenant in return agrees to pay the rent and, possibly, perform other covenants contained in the tenancy agreement. A breach by the tenant does not generally allow the landlord to cease to provide

It is assumed that the property became comprised in the donees' estates on the making of the original disposal so that the residence nil rate band (RNRB) is available on the gift with reservation of benefit (GROB). Where the GROB was made more than seven years before the death of the donor Bear in mind that, pursuant to section 102 of the Finance Act 1986 (FA 1986), the property concerned is treated as property to which the deceased was beneficially entitled immediately prior to their death. In other words, it is treated as though it were part of their estate when they died. Section 8J of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) refers

The Will of a deceased testator speaks from the date of death and therefore the terms of it come into effect from that date. However, the beneficiaries are not entitled immediately to call upon the personal representatives to transfer their entitlements to them, but rather their entitlement is a 'chose in action' namely the right to have the estate properly administered. Section 58 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) sets out the definition of 'relevant property' and this includes discretionary Will Trusts but not Will Trusts in which an immediate post death interest exists. Where the relevant property regime applies to a relevant property trust created by

If an executor distributes the estate to meet the pecuniary legacies and does not retain a sufficient reserve to pay liabilities, including expenses and legal costs associated with the administration of the estate, they will be personally liable to meet those liabilities. An executor should therefore ensure that the debts and expenses of the estate are met before considering payment of legacies. Even if specific bequests have been made in the Will, if the funds are required for the payment of the liabilities and debts of the estate, those assets can be utilised for the purpose of discharging those liabilities. This is known as abatement. In

We refer you to Practice Note: Apportionment of IHT burden on death, which sets out how inheritance tax (IHT) is apportioned on death, including in scenarios where there are legacies and residue passing to a mix of exempt and non-exempt beneficiaries. As noted in Practice Note: Grossing up and partly exempt estates, in particular at section: Residue is left to a mix of exempt and non-exempt beneficiaries, the case of Re Ratcliffe's Estate involved a Will where all the testatrix’s residuary estate was left on trust, after payment of her debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, as to one-half for non-exempt beneficiaries, and as to the remainder

In order for a court to find that a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the court must be satisfied of one or more of the following facts, pursuant to section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973): • the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent (note there are two parts to this test) • the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent • desertion for a continuous period of at least two years prior to the petition • two years of separation with consent • five years of separation If the petitioner does seek to rely on adultery as the ground for divorce, a number of points should be borne in mind. Firstly, the adultery relied upon by the petitioner cannot be the adultery of the petitioner, it must be the adultery of the respondent. Secondly, the petitioner cannot rely on adultery

Service out of the jurisdiction in relation to new applications issued on or after 6 April 2022 is governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 6.40–6.48, in its amended form. These rules apply to both applications for matrimonial etc orders and other documents. The applicant has a choice as to service under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.43(3). Either the application may be served in accordance with FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 6.45–6.46 (service through foreign governments, the Central Authority in the case of a Hague Service Convention country, (which includes Finland), judicial authorities and British