Validity of Wills

CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19): For Wills made on or after 31 January 2020, the formal requirement for a valid Will to be witnessed in the presence of two witnesses includes both physical and virtual presence, to allow Wills to be validly witnessed remotely by way of video conference. For the latest guidance on this temporary change (which takes effect for Wills made up to and including 31 January 2024), see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—Wills. This change is introduced by the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020, SI 2020/952 which amends Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837), s 9 and the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) Order 2022, SI 2022/18. Note that the guidance below relates to WA 1837 in its unchanged form. For details of the new rules and the changes to WA 1837, s 9, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—remote witnessing of Wills.The WA 1837Amendment Order, SI 2020/952 was expressed to apply to Wills and codicils made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, subject to the possibility of further extension. From 1 February 2022, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic

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 Private Client News

Private Client weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Wigglesworth v Beetson, in which the claimant failed in an action for estoppel and adverse possession; (2) the Hansard Society to host a briefing on parliamentary process for Assisted Dying Bill; (3) Khan v Khan, which considered family property and constructive trusts; (4) analysis of the Autumn Budget announcement to bring unused pension funds and death benefits within the scope of IHT; (5) Palmer v Sans, which found that there was no transaction at an undervalue where property was already held on trust for the transferee; (6) KA v FA (The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening), where the court recognised an overseas adoption notwithstanding failure of common law test; and (7) Kireeva v Bedzhamov, in which the Supreme Court has confirmed the application of the immovables rule to English property.

Privy Council rules BVI company shares are not immovable property (Al Thani v Al Thani)

Private Client analysis: In a decision which will come as a relief to private individuals who own shares in BVI companies, the Privy Council has decided that section 245 of the BVI’s Business Companies Act 2004 does not have the effect of re-categorising shares as immovable property for the purposes of succession. Written by Kyle Bonnell, pupil at XXIV Old Buildings.

Supreme Court confirms application of immovables rule to English property

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Ms Kireeva’s (Russian bankruptcy trustee’s) appeal to overturn the Court of Appeal’s’ decision regarding matters arising out of the bankruptcy of Mr Bedzhamov. Peter Declercq and Patrick Elliot, partners at DCQ Legal (who acted for Ms Kireeva), discuss the implications of the judgment.

UT finds FTT made errors when setting aside HMRC best judgment assessment (HMRC v Sintra Global)

Tax analysis: In Sintra Global, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) insofar as it related to a notice HMRC had issued to an individual making him liable for the payment of a civil evasion penalty charged against a company he was a director of. The UT found that the FTT had failed to follow the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Pegasus Birds in relation to the assessment the penalty was based on.