Delay Not Fatal in Inheritance Act Claims

Delay Not Fatal in Inheritance Act Claims

/in /by

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 certain family members, particularly spouses, can make an application to the Court for financial provision if they do not feel that they have been adequately provided for on the death of a close family member.

Claims of inadequate financial provision are becoming increasingly common as couples are entering into second marriages, but making Wills leaving their assets to the children from their first marriage meaning that their surviving spouse receives little or nothing.

Should a spouse need to challenge the Will there is a strict 6 month time limit after the grant of probate, but what happens when the surviving spouse didn’t know that they could make a claim and certainly wasn’t aware that there was a 6 month time limit?

The recent cases of Bhusate v Patel and Cowan v Foreman show that failing to bring a claim within the required time is not fatal and in the case of Bhusate the claim was allowed 25 years after the death of the spouse.

The Cowan v Foreman case confirmed that Courts should consider the following matters on any application after the 6 month limit:

  1. The court’s discretion is unfettered but must be exercised judicially in accordance with what is right and proper.
  1. The onus is on the Applicant to show sufficient grounds for the granting of permission to apply out of time.
  1. The court must consider whether the Applicant has acted promptly and the circumstances in which they applied for an extension of time after the expiry of the time limit.
  1. Were negotiations begun within the time limit?
  • Has the estate been distributed before the claim was notified to the Defendants?
  • Would dismissal of the claim leave the Applicant without recourse to other remedies?
  • Looking at the position as it is now, has the Applicant an arguable case under the Inheritance Act if I allowed the application to proceed?

An interesting point raised by the Court of Appeal in the Cowan v Foreman case was that the Judge commented that it is not necessarily true that there must be a good reason for the delay in every case.

The above cases appear to show that the Courts may have sympathy with individuals bringing claims after the 6 month limit, particularly where they can show that they have a good claim to financial provision from the Estate of the deceased. Delay therefore may not mean the end of a potential claim.

Ethical Veganism Protected by Employment Law

Ethical Veganism Protected by Employment Law

/in /by

With veganism gaining significantly in popularity over the last 12 months or so it is perhaps timely that the question of whether Veganism is a belief that can be protected by law has been raised in the Employment Tribunal.

The case in question was brought by an employee of the League Against Cruel Sports. The employee, Mr Casamitjana, stated that he had been dismissed by his employer due to his ethical veganism. His employer on the other hand stated that his sacking was a result of his gross misconduct.

Although the Judge is yet to make a decision as to whether Mr Casamitjana’s dismissal was fair or not, he did make an interim decision that ethical veganism satisfied the tests required for it to be a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010.

This decision comes not long after a different Employment Tribunal in the case of Conisbee v Crossley Farms ruled that vegetarianism was not a belief that could be protected under the Equality Act.

For a belief to be protected it must meet a series of tests including being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not being incompatible with human dignity, and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.

Given the different decisions in the above cases it would seem that there may not be joined-up thinking going at the Tribunal on these matters as yet. However, it should be noted that both decisions referred to above were made at the lowest level of the Employment Tribunal and therefore they are not binding on future decisions. Therefore whilst raising interesting issues, it will take a decision by a higher Court before it is clear what effect this ruling may have on employers and employees.

Should you require advice about an Employment Law matter please contact us today.

The Dangers of Legal Advice on the Web

The Dangers of Legal Advice on the Web

/in , /by

Researchers at the University of Bristol and University of Leeds have published a study that is concerning for those looking to the internet and social media for legal advice on Family Law matters.

The research considered the advice provided online by 30 McKenzie Friends in various online platforms and social media threads. They found that the advice given was biased and misinformed, with some of the McKenzie Friends suggesting that individuals should ignore the advice of their lawyers and stating that the Courts were institutionally unfair.

One of the authors of the study, Dr Tatiana Tkacukova, commented:

“While there are many positive experiences, the unregulated environment online means that our research found several instances of worrying, biased and misleading advice. The negative portrayals of the courts and social services, alongside the advice to ignore specialised legal advice show a worrying trend towards personal viewpoints and agendas clouding impartial and objective support.”

What are McKenzie Friends

McKenzie Friends are individuals who may assist someone with a dispute (usually Family Law matters) in terms of providing moral support, attending at Court with them and taking notes at Court. However, they are not allowed to conduct the case or address the Court.

A McKenzie Friend can be a family member, friend, work colleague etc. However, some McKenzie Friends offer their services to people they do not know, such as on the internet as per the study above and charge for their services. This is despite the fact that they are not qualified Solicitors or Barristers and in the majority of cases do not have any legal training.

How We can Help

Whilst it is understandable that people may look to the internet and social media for advice, this study shows that it is highly questionable that the advice given in these threads can be relied on.

At Waller Needham & Green you will always receive unbiased legal advice from a Solicitor specialising in Family Law. We offer a fixed fee initial meeting for £120 (inclusive of VAT) which includes a letter following the meeting confirming the advice given.

Contact us here