My sister has passed away. She separated from her husband years ago although they never got divorced, so they are technically still married. My sister never made a Will. Will her husband inherit her estate?

The only people who are legally entitled to sight of a Will before a Grant of Probate is issued are the executors who are named in the Will.  That being said, it is common practice for an executor to provide a copy of the Will if it is requested.

Once a Grant of Probate is issued, the Will is then a public document and can be readily accessed by anybody who wishes to see it.

This is unlikely. Frustration is a doctrine rarely used as a way of getting out of leases. It operates to bring a lease to an early end because of the effect of a supervening event. It is then not a concept readily applicable to a situation where one party is looking to get out of a lease. To be able to argue the doctrine of frustration, you must be able to demonstrate that something unforeseeable has happened that makes it impossible to fulfil the lease and unjust to hold a party to its obligations.

This is not something that can be demonstrated easily.

There was a case in the High Court last year when the doctrine of frustration was looked at in a case involving the European Medical Agency.

The court found that Brexit did not frustrate EMA’s lease. EMA was granted leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, but unfortunately, the parties settled out of court so the arguments were not tested in the higher court.

Another reason why frustration is likely to fail is an argument that, whilst the current lockdown may force closures to businesses and whilst such closures maybe for a lengthy period, such closures will only be temporary.

The government has produced a series of industry specific “Covid-19 Secure” guidelines, which employers should follow. These guidelines are designed to keep the risk of infection as low as possible, while allowing as many people as possible to resume their livelihoods.

People who can make a claim for financial provision are set out in the 1975 Act.  The categories are as follows:

• Surviving spouses or civil partners of the deceased;
• Former spouses or civil partners of the deceased;
• Cohabiting partners who lived with the deceased for a least 2 years prior to their death;
• A child of the deceased;
• Someone treated as a child of the deceased’s family (for example a step-child); and
• People who are “maintained” by the deceased – sometimes referred to as people who financially depended upon the deceased.

The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:

• The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
• How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
• Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.

The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.