Family provision claims

Family provision claims—preliminary issues

Before the court can exercise jurisdiction it must be proved that the deceased died domiciled in England and Wales. The question of domicile can be a complex issue but broadly, it will depend on the deceased’s:

•
domicile of origin
•
domicile of choice: this does not replace the domicile of origin but may suspend it

Where the deceased’s domicile is contended, it is for the claimant to prove domicile on the balance of probabilities. Proof of death is also an obvious prerequisite of an application and the burden of proof of that also rests with the claimant.

Proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) in the High Court are assigned to either the Chancery Division or Family Division, depending on the claimant's choice. Proceedings can also be issued in the County Court.

See Practice Note: Family provision claims—preliminary issues.

Domicile and habitual residence

There are significant differences between domicile and habitual residence: habitual residence is generally a question of fact whereas domicile is a legal concept. There are also differences in

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family court judges’ anonymisation reversed by Court of Appeal (Tickle & Summers v BBC and others)

Family analysis: The murder of ten-year-old Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother continues to dominate the UK news. Following her death, journalists (Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers) and major news organisations sought disclosure of documents and information from the historical Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) proceedings concerning Sara and her siblings, including the relevant judges’ names. Despite the judges involved in those proceedings having made no application in respect of their own anonymity, Mr Justice Williams nonetheless included in his disclosure order a provision that their names were not to be published. The appeals against Williams J’s decision were successful on each of the three grounds advanced. He had lacked jurisdiction to order the judges’ anonymisation and there had been serious procedural irregularities owing to the lack of submissions and evidence on the anonymisation issue. The Court of Appeal also disapproved of the judge’s use of anecdotal material and his own experiences to try to shore up his judgment. Williams J was further criticised for his unfair treatment of the journalists and Channel 4. Publication of the judges’ names has now taken place in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s decision to ensure a short interval of seven days occurred during which time HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was required to put in place any protective measures. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.

CTJ announces applications for High Court Judicial Assistant Scheme 2025/2026

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CTJ) has announced that applications for the Judicial Assistant Scheme for the High Court of England and Wales for 2025/2026 will open on 14 February 2025. The deadline for applications is at 6pm on 21 March 2025. The scheme offers placements lasting either two or four legal terms, targeting recently qualified barristers and solicitors in the early stages of their careers. Successful applicants will be assigned to judges across all three Divisions of the High Court, assisting with legal research, document summarisation, and general judicial support. Candidates must demonstrate effective decision-making, excellent communication skills, the ability to deliver at pace, and a high level of professional integrity.

Supreme Court dismisses appeal upholding care order procedures (The Father v Worcestershire County Council)

On 29 January 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in The Father v Worcestershire County Council, dismissing the father's appeal against the care order placing his children in foster care. The father had sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the care order was made without jurisdiction and that his children were unlawfully detained. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his application, stating that the correct process was to challenge the care order through the procedures outlined in the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) and the Family Procedure Rules, rather than through habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasising that the children were not detained but living in a domestic setting typical for their age. The judgment underscores the importance of following established legal procedures for challenging care orders, and highlights the limited scope of habeas corpus in such family law matters. Mark Blundell, Barrister at 1 GC Family Law, comments on the judgment.

Family weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of new practice guidance from the President of the Family Division on the use of intermediaries, lay advocates and cognitive assessments in family proceedings, the extension of the family mediation voucher scheme and HMCTS guidance for barristers using the financial remedy contested system. Recent judgments including the Supreme Court's dismissal of a father's application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of his two children from the care of Worcestershire County Council under a care order and consideration by the Court of Appeal of the anonymisation of judges’ names in historic family proceedings are also set out.