Skip to content

Who can bring a claim for financial provision?

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.

Related FAQs

What are the new rules about wearing face masks in the workplace?

The new rules for wearing face masks/face coverings in the workplace introduced on 23 September 2020 are as follows:

  • Staff in retail, including shops, supermarkets and shopping centres, will now have to wear a face covering
  • Staff in hospitality will now have to wear a face covering
  • Guidance stating that face coverings and visors should be worn in close contact services, such as hairdressers and beauticians, will now become law
  • Staff working on public transport and taxi drivers will continue to be advised to wear face coverings

You can take off your mask if:

  • You who need to eat, drink, or take medication
  • A police officer or other official asks you to
OPPORTUNITY: Funding towards legal advice for North East SMEs

We have teamed up with Scaleup North East to help companies impacted by the coronavirus outbreak plan how to get back to business.

Our specialist lawyers will provide a free “diagnostic” call with eligible businesses across the NE, exploring challenges they are facing in the aftermath of the lockdown, and identify specific steps to survive, and then thrive, in these challenging times and beyond.

Through the collaboration with Scaleup North East, eligible North East-based SMEs are then able to apply for up to 40% funding towards up to £4,000 of legal advice.

These might include:

  • Employment issues, such as dealing with a phased return to work
  • Measures to support cash-flow, such as amendment to terms of trading and debt collection procedures
  • Renegotiations and amendments to contracts, and other advice about contracts with suppliers and customers to deal with consequences of Covid-19
  • Managing property costs – review of leases, advice on break clauses and formalisation of any revised arrangements recently put in place with landlords/tenants
  • Health and safety implications of return to work and social distancing

Find out more on our website or contact partner Damien Charlton.  If you are not eligible because of location but are interested in the free “diagnostic”, please contact us.

I lease commercial premises. Can my landlord forfeit my lease?

As part of the Coronavirus Bill there is some good news for tenants in so far as it included the following:

  • All commercial tenants in England, Wales and Northern Ireland missing rent payments are to benefit from a government ban on forfeiture of their lease.
  • Landlords then will be prevented from terminating leases and “evicting” commercial tenants.
  • The above provisions rules will apply not only to principal rent, but to “any sum a tenant is required to pay”, leaving the burden of supplying services and insuring the premises on landlords. The bill will last until 30 June 2020, with an option for the government to extend this deadline.

Whist this is helpful to any Tenant planning not to pay rent or other payments due under their lease insofar as they will not suffer forfeiture and be evicted, it should be noted that the contractual obligation to continue paying rent and all other costs due under the lease remains and Landlords will still be able to take action to recover any payments due under the lease that are in arrears.

VIDEO: Can trade credit insurance help to keep the supply chain moving?

On Tuesday 23rd June, partner Emma Digby was in conversation with Steve Hamstead and Mark Smith from AON along with Ward Hadaway commercial lawyer Nathan Bilton in a webinar titled Can trade credit insurance help to keep the supply chain moving?

The insurance market is under untold pressure as a result of the pandemic, and in such times there is a risk that insurers will cancel or reduce credit lines, particularly in certain high risk sectors such as retail. However the Government has stepped in to effectively underwrite the existing trade credit insurance agreements, and to keep trade supplies moving. Will this be enough?

In this webinar, we discussed:

  • the Government backed scheme and how it will operate
  • the prospects of obtaining insurance going forward, and whether it will become too cost prohibitive
  • could the new legislation put your business at risk and jeopardise your insurance cover if you cannot cancel a contract when you are not getting paid for your goods or services
  • the Brexit effect, and how this will affect the insurance market
  • protecting your business with proper risk assessment processes and paperwork
What perceived gaps do you see in the Building Safety Act 2022 (especially in terms of pending consultations and secondary instruments)?Comments on the value of the Martlet v Mulalley judgment in fire safety cases/unsafe cladding cases

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.