What if I haven’t been left anything in a Will? Can I contest it?
There are several grounds upon which it is potentially possible to contest a person’s Will. These include:
- The person making the Will (the testator) lacked the necessary mental capacity
- The testator either did not know or did not approve of the contents of their Will
- The testator was improperly influenced into making the Will
- The Will was not correctly executed
- The Will is a forgery and/or was fraudulently obtained
All of these types of claim are known as “validity disputes”, because you are effectively disputing the validity of the Will itself.
On the other hand it may be that even if the Will is valid, you feel that it is unfair in that it does not make sufficient financial provision for you. In those circumstances, it may be possible to bring a claim under a piece of legislation known as the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (known simply as the 1975 Act). The 1975 Act provides for certain classes of people to be able to apply to the court for greater financial provision out of a deceased person’s estate, and is explained in more detail below in the FAQs relating to financial provision.
Related FAQs
Pension sharing orders are used to redistribute a couple’s pension provisions following a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. When a pension sharing order is made, the paying party’s pension provider is instructed to transfer a specified percentage of that pension into a pension in the name of the receiving party. The pension is effectively lifted out of the paying party’s pension and paid into a pension belonging to the receiving party so that it becomes their pension to do with as they please. Once implemented, the paying party cannot dictate to the receiving party what they should do with the pension. It is worth remembering however that when a pension is transferred under a pension sharing order, it must be paid into another pension and it cannot be released as cash. A pension sharing order is also not available to couples who have chosen to have a judicial separation rather than a divorce/dissolution.
- Working with PFI providers to get contingency plans up to date
- If a PFI provider is struggling to achieve service delivery requirements due to Covid-19, then local arrangements should be put in place to:
- maintain unitary charge payments
- revise contract requirements/standards
moderating payment and performance regimes where appropriate.
- In any event, you may wish to review and adjust your requirements to reflect the current situation. It is possible that some requirements can be relaxed, whereas others need to be tightened. For example, there may be an increased need for cleaning and maintenance in certain areas of your PFI premises or the layout of the premises and/or room uses may have temporarily changed. With staff illness and shortage likely to be an issue, you may also wish to consider if the resource can be moved from one area to another to help maintain essential services.
- When putting local bespoke arrangements into place it is vital that:
- Contract requirements or performance standards are not relaxed to the point where health and safety are put at risk.
- It is made clear that the arrangements are temporary and that matters will return to normal as soon as the Covid-19 emergency is over. Indeed the guidance note makes clear that if assets temporarily close they should be kept in such condition that they can be immediately up and running when this emergency is over. In such instances, likely a basic level of maintenance and security will therefore be required as a minimum.
This would depend on the reason as to why the employee is refusing to come into work. An unauthorised absence is where an employee fails to attend work and they do not have a statutory or contractual right, or their employer’s permission, to do so. An employer will not be obliged to pay employees their normal pay for periods of unauthorised absence.
There are some absences which may be viewed as authorised which would entitle the employee to their full pay. For instance, employees who believe that they are in serious and imminent danger by coming to work would be entitled to stay at home and receive pay if their belief is deemed reasonable.
An employer should always try to discuss any unauthorised absences with an employee. They may then consider whether to take disciplinary action against the employee.
The financial implications of having to repay all deposits and advance payments could be very serious for some businesses. As an alternative to a refund, many are offering customers the opportunity to re-book at a later date, or a voucher that can be redeemed against a subsequent booking.
The CMA’s view on this practice is that consumers can in many situations be offered alternatives of this type, but they should not be “misled or pressured” into accepting this. Their view is that a refund should be an option that is just as clearly and easily available. The CMA also points out that any restrictions that apply to credits, vouchers, re-booking or re-scheduling, such as the period in which credits must be used or services re-booked, must also be fair and made clear to consumers.
The full CMA guidance re “The Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, consumer contracts, cancellation and refunds” can be found here.
The coronavirus outbreak has seen State support being given to businesses on an unprecedented scale.
This issue is likely to be increasingly relevant as Governments seek to protect and stimulate their economies as they emerge from lockdown.
How have the rules been relaxed in the context of the crisis and what facets of the existing law can be used for the State to provide support to undertakings?