Kaur v Dhaliwal & Anor [2014] EWHC 1991 (Ch)
Judgment date: 17 June 2014
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Related
Armstrong v Armstrong & Anor (Re Remedy) [2025] EWHC 2054 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC sitting as a High Court judge. Judgment considering the appropriate remedy for a claimant who had proved his proprietary estoppel claim and his alternative claim for entitlement under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) 1975 Act.
Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)
Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.
Bad Behaviour and Broken Bonds: A Comparison of Conduct in 1973 and 1975 Act Claims
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) was enacted in an expansion of the court’s statutory powers for financial provision on death.[[1]] Two years earlier, Parliament had enacted the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) to alter the court’s
Latest
The Curious Case of CA 1989 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3)
Paragraph 1 of CA 1989 Schedule 1 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief against parents’. Paragraph 2 is headed ‘Orders for financial relief for persons over eighteen’. As recent cases have demonstrated this structure causes complications.
The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know
Watch the recording of ‘The 2026 FRC Guide: What Practitioners Need to Know’, first broadcast on Wednesday 6th May 2026 with the authors of the new FRC Guide - HHJ Edward Hess, Nicholas Allen KC, Michael Allum, Lily Mottahedan and Rhys Taylor
Mazur in the Court of Appeal: the Judgment That Saved Half the Profession from Accidental Criminality
The Court of Appeal rewrites the landscape of ‘conduct of litigation’ – Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 369.