Blog
Updated Insolvency Code of Ethics: what do insolvency practitioners need to know?
Jenny Higgins
In order for a will to be validly executed it must comply with the requirements set out at Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 being that it must:
While the courts normally try to give effect to testamentary dispositions when possible, if the requirements are found not to have been met, a will is not valid at law. The effect of this is that either, if there is a prior will which was valid, that will should be followed, or if there is no prior valid will, an intestacy arises.
There have been a number of recent cases dealing with issues around execution. In the case of British Diabetic Association v Chenery [2024], a will that had been written on two separate pieces of cardboard, one cut from a Young’s fish fillets box and one cut from a Mr Kipling mince pie box, was found to be valid.
The testator prepared the will shortly before he sadly died by suicide. The two pieces of cardboard were numbered one and two and expressed a number of wishes, mainly specific wishes that certain property and belongings were to go to charity. The second piece of cardboard was signed by the testator and there were two signatures above of the attesting witnesses.
The Probate Registry had refused to admit the will to probate because only one of the pages was executed. The charity issued the claim to pronounce the will. Had the will not been valid, there would have been an intestacy under which the estate would have been shared between the testator’s siblings. The testator’s family however did not oppose the application.
The Court found that:
There have also recently been reports of a case heard at the Central London County Court whereby video footage was produced of the Defendant guiding her mother’s hand when signing a new will under which the defendant benefitted; the will leaving the entire estate to her. The Defendant’s brother contested the will. It is reported that the Judge found that, along with lack of capacity, there was a failure in execution in that the testator did not ask the defendant for help in signing the will, nor did she direct her to sign the will on her behalf. The will was found not to be valid.
These types of disputes are incredibly fact specific and evidence is always key.
On 16 May 2025, the Law Commission published recommendations to reform the law relating to wills including the creation of a draft bill for a new Wills Act. The recommendations include:
This is not law yet; however, if the recommendations are taken forward, a will could still be treated as valid even if the formalities had not been met. It is as yet unclear what evidence would be required to show that the will demonstrates the testator’s intentions at the time the will was made and until their death. However, the recommendations make clear that the expectation would be that the court would only exercise this power where there is clear evidence of testamentary intentions.
If you have any questions regarding this blog, please contact Sophie Mass in our Dispute Resolution team.
Sophie is an Associate in the Dispute Resolution team. She specialises in trust, estate and court of protection disputes, often acting in high value and complex cases.
The COVID pandemic was a difficult time for businesses, and many legitimately relied on financial support provided through government schemes to help them to survive and retain employees. However, it is estimated by HMRC that circa £10billion was also lost as a result of incorrect applications and outright fraud.
At a time when a national broadcaster feels obliged to unpick (for the lawyer in us: alleged) misleading information from the leader of the free world, I almost choked on my breakfast when reading that we should also be concerned that some of us lawyers may be misleading the public too: 'No win, no fee' under fire: SRA vows to stop law firms hoodwinking consumers | Law Gazette Why now is a mystery; the term has been a feature of daytime TV advertising for decades!
As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, two major frameworks are set to reshape how crypto-assets are reported: the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) and the European Union’s Directive on Administration Cooperation in taxation (“DAC8”).
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.
The headlines this week around former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are a reminder of the importance of taking the right advice from appropriate professionals and the potential consequences when such advice is called into question.
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of April - June 2025.
Judicial commentary shows that judges are exceedingly aware of the unreliability of witnesses’ memory when considering evidence at trial. While judges may take differing views as to the reliance that ought to be placed on oral evidence as compared to contemporaneous documents, procedural safeguards are now in place to help strengthen the reliability of witness evidence, in CPR Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts (“PD 57AC”).
We have previously written about the potential death of the shareholder principle in our previous blogs. The recent Privy Council decision in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 confirms what we suspected; the shareholder principle no longer exists in England & Wales.
We all know that arbitration and litigation are governed by different rules which dictate the way disputes are dealt with and the way that hearings proceed. One perhaps surprising difference, however, is the approach to oral evidence.
Issues with expert evidence can have a profound impact on the credibility of a party’s case, and consequently the likelihood or not of a party succeeding at trial. In this article we discuss some recent case law which highlights the need for parties to carefully comply with their procedural obligations regarding expert evidence, namely Part 35 of the CPR (“Part 35”) and the accompanying Practice Direction, to avoid such risks.
One of the key duties of a liquidator is to investigate the affairs of the insolvent company to determine whether its demise resulted from the acts (or omissions) of its directors or third parties against whom claims may be brought to obtain redress for losses suffered by the Company. This article focuses on claims initiated by the liquidator themselves, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of the company, and considers the weight that will be given to the liquidator’s evidence.
Where a party wishes to rely on a witness statement at trial, Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 32.5 provides that they must call the witness to give oral evidence unless the court orders otherwise, or notice is provided of the intention to rely on the statement as hearsay evidence.
One of the issues that may arise during litigation is a witness failing to turn up at court to give evidence.
In an ideal world, witnesses providing evidence in First-tier Tax Tribunal proceedings would do so in person at a hearing. It is often easier to build a rapport with the Judge in person, you avoid technical issues, and however informal the Tax Tribunal is in comparison to the civil courts, there is something to be said about looking into the whites of a witness’s eyes during a cross examination.
For a will to be valid, the testator must have had testamentary capacity at the time it was made. Testamentary capacity refers to the mental ability of the testator to make a valid will.
Waqar Shah, a Partner at Kingsley Napley, takes a closer look at the recent report by the Committee of Public Accounts on the cost of the tax system.
When a loved one dies, the terms of their will can sometimes surprise surviving family members, with unexpected beneficiaries or unequal distribution of the estate. In England and Wales, individuals have the freedom to leave their estate to anyone, with no legal obligation to provide for specific family members. Even if the will seems unfair, the law generally upholds the testator's wishes, if the will has been validly made. However, certain family members and dependants may be able to bring a claim against the estate (under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975), if adequate provision has not been made for them under a will.
The 2023/24 tax year marks a major shift in the way unincorporated businesses are taxed. It is a transition year, with HMRC moving from the traditional “current year basis” to a “tax year basis” from 6 April 2024. While this change is intended to simplify the system in the long run, it introduces some short-term complexities (and often tax expense) during the transition year which partners and other sole traders ought to be alive to.
In order for a will to be validly executed it must comply with the requirements set out at Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.
Two years ago, the UK political and banking world was rocked by the “de-banking” of Nigel Farage, the politician. It turned out that other figures in the public eye, or related to those who were in politics, had struggled to gain access to accounts, or had them shut. Policymakers have sought to make changes. How far have they moved?
There continues to be a rise in will validity challenges involving allegations that an individual was unduly influenced to change the terms of their will. Such cases often involve the elderly or vulnerable, who may be more susceptible to influence, or someone abusing a position of trust to coerce an individual to write a will on terms that they otherwise would not have. This generally results in the person who exerted the influence (or someone close to them) benefitting significantly under the terms of the will.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Or call +44 (0)20 7814 1200
Jenny Higgins
Claire Wood
Nevin Rosenberg
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print