Affidavit or witness statement evidence In an application for a grant of representation, usually the information contained in application form PA1P or PA1A or the online application (formerly a separate statement of truth) is the only evidence the court will require in order to prove the deceased’s Will. However, there may be circumstances where further evidence is needed, which may be in the form of an affidavit or witness statement. With effect from 2 November 2020, the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, SI 1987/2024 (NCPR 1987) are amended by the Non-Contentious Probate (Amendment) Rules 2020, SI 2020/1059 to provide for the use of witness statements as an alternative to affidavits for certain non-contentious probate applications and processes. Due execution The inclusion in a Will of an attestation clause showing compliance with the requirements of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 raises a presumption of due execution of the Will. Practitioners will need to decide whether each testamentary document satisfies the requirements of WA 1837, s 9. There may be doubts about due execution of the Will, such

Will execution ceremony describes the practical process by which a will is formally signed and witnessed so that it becomes legally valid. It covers arranging the signing appointment, checking the testator’s capacity and understanding, ensuring the correct signature, date and attestation wording, and supervising the witnesses’ signatures.In England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the ceremony is conducted to comply with statutory formalities broadly derived from the Wills Act 1837 and equivalent legislation, including signature by the testator (or authorised person) and attestation by two witnesses present. In Scotland, the ceremony focuses on meeting the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, typically involving subscription by the testator and one witness for a “self‑proving” will.The term “will execution ceremony” is descriptive rather than a defined statutory term, but is widely used in private client practice, probate, succession and estate planning. Its proper conduct is critical to reducing the risk of later challenges based on lack of due execution, lack of capacity, undue influence or fraud, and contemporaneous attendance notes and file records from the ceremony are often key evidence in contentious probate and will‑challenge litigation.

If, the other spouse no longer owns property, the relief should be available. If the other spouse continues to own the property, that property is a dwelling and he/she and the buyer are ‘living together’, the relief would not be available. It is worth noting that, there is a presumption that individuals in a marriage are ‘living together’ unless they are separated under a deed of separation, or a court order, or they are separated in circumstances in which the separation

The standard forms of collateral warranty that parties involved in a construction project are most likely to suggest are published by: • JCT (drafted for use by contractors and sub-contractors) • CIC (drafted for use by consultants) The British Property Federation (BPF) previously published a standard form of warranty, but this is no longer being printed. There is no standard form NEC3 collateral warranty. In fact, only the Professional Services Contract (PSC) envisages the provision of collateral warranties—but it does not include a form of warranty within the contract, therefore the parties need to append the agreed form and include reference to it in the contract data. Parties entering into the NEC3 ECC form would therefore need to add a Z clause and attach an appropriate form of warranty to their contract. Funders are unlikely to accept any of the standard (published) form collateral warranties without amendment. This is due to the limitations on the warrantor’s liability that are included in most standard form warranties. Purchasers and tenants

Inheritance tax treatment pre A-day Most employer-financed retirement benefit schemes (EFRBS) are trust-based and will be treated as relevant property trusts for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes (see HMRC manual: IHTM17027). According to HMRC, before 6 April 2006, such schemes usually met the definition of ‘sponsored superannuation schemes’ (see definition below). As a result, they fell within section 151 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and were thus excluded from being a relevant property trust by virtue of IHTA 1984, s 58(1)(d) (as in force before 6 April

Although there is no decided authority on this issue, the approach of the courts to the construction of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) is such that it is likely this transaction will be a relevant disposal. Relevant premises The purpose of the LTA 1987 is to give a residential tenant a right of first refusal when the immediate reversioner disposes of its title to the premises as defined by LTA 1987, s 1(2). LTA 1987, s 4(1) states, that a relevant disposal affecting any premises is a reference to a disposal by the landlord of any estate or interest in any such premises. LTA 1987, s 1(2) states the following: ‘(2)

This answer can vary greatly depending on the exact circumstances and details in which the option is granted and the specific details of the grantor and the recipient. However, although the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) includes charging provisions which are specific to options granted to employees, you should note that it is certainly possible for income tax charges to arise in relation to a share option which has been

Private Client analysis: The case was an appeal against Notices of Determination issued by HMRC regarding the estate of Mrs Hilda Marks (HM). There were two key issues for consideration in this case: whether the charitable giving condition in Schedule 1A of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 applied to reduce the rate of IHT payable by the estate; whether a 'Kosher holiday let' apartment in Bournemouth qualified for BPR. In each case, the HMRC determinations were upheld. As to whether the charitable rate applied, the competing arguments were based upon differing interpretations of the relevant Will and the associated impact on the IHT calculations. This will be of particular interest for those involved in the administration of estates and trusts which provide for charitable gifts, or the associated drafting. For the latter, this is another in a list of cases where HMRC have successfully challenged a claim for BPR for holiday letting businesses. There were some interesting additional services provided in this case but a lack of evidence of these meant that they were insufficient to overturn HMRC's view. Written by Robert Davies, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP.

In the normal course of events a Will passes through the probate process without difficulty. However, where there is confusion over the wording used in the Will the personal representatives (PRs) may anticipate that this confusion will lead to a dispute over the interpretation (or construction) of the Will, either in part or as a whole. Over many years and cases there have been some pointers as to how particular wording or phrases can be interpreted and this may assist the PRs seeking to obtain agreement from the relevant beneficiaries to avoid the matter necessarily proceeding to court. Even where a Will poses an interpretation issue it is still open to the PRs to agree a course of action with all the beneficiaries, assuming they are all ascertained, of full age and mentally capable. If not, the PRs can take advantage of section 48 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (AJA 1985) by which they can apply to the High Court, producing the opinion of a barrister of at least ten years standing, to the effect that a

In any claim relating to the interpretation of documents, including a Will construction claim, the court seeks to establish the meaning which the Will would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the testator at the time the Will was made, as set out by Lord Hoffman in the Investors’ Compensation Scheme Ltd case. For an overview of the approach taken by the courts to construction claims, see Practice Note: Will interpretation—principles of construction. This Practice Note focuses on the construction of nil rate band (NRB) legacies in Wills and, in particular, how the courts will assess the value of the assets passing to the legatee(s), the assets which pass to the legatee, and how the residue of the estate is therefore comprised. The Practice Note also examines precedent wording for NRB legacies and practical issues which can arise following the testator’s death. What is the NRB? Each person's estate is exempt from inheritance tax (IHT) up to a certain threshold known as the basic NRB. The

Although the construction of a Will or words or terms of a Will may be decided by a court the principles that are adopted do not lean towards contentious proceedings. The common approach was well indicated in the case of Re the trusts of the will of Harold John Goddard Goddard (as trustees of the will dated 11 February 2008 of Harold John Goddard) v Hunter (as co-trustee of the will dated 11 February 2008 of Harold John Goddard) where Master Kaye stated in the introduction: ‘This is a Part 8 Claim for the construction of a Will [....] following 18 months of correspondence between the parties. Despite the content of some of that correspondence this is not hostile litigation but is what used to be described as a construction summons. Counsel for both parties had approached the application on the basis that their role was to assist the court and provide the arguments for and against the contrary possible constructions of the dispositions of the Will.’ Adversarial applications are both time-consuming and expensive.

Rules relating to the construction of Wills have developed over many years and those surrounding the interpretation of dispositions were quite unclear due to the differing rules relating to personalty and realty. This was changed by the statutory effect of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982). The case of Marley v Rawlings confirmed that the modern approach is to ascertain the testator’s intention from their words. While no longer as definitive as they were previously, many of the previous rules remain a helpful starting point. On the basis of the caselaw in this area, practitioners are advised to use only Will precedents that are in common usage and not to depart from them without careful consideration. References to property in a Will speak from the date of death A reference to real and/or personal property (for a discussion of real and personal estate, see Practice Note: Devolution of assets and the need for a grant) in a Will speaks from the date of death, ie, as if the Will had been executed immediately