Can I bring a claim against an estate even if the Will has been validly made?

If a dispute goes to court then the losing party will have to pay both their own and the winning parties’ legal costs.   In other words, if you did not succeed with your claim, you would have to pay the legal costs incurred by the beneficiaries of the estate.  However, if your claim succeeds, the beneficiaries of the estate are likely to have to pay your legal costs, as well as any financial provision which is ordered by the court to come from the estate.

Ward Hadaway can offer a number of options to help to minimise your financial outlay, including acting on a fixed fee basis or a no win no fee arrangement.

We have been offering no win no fee arrangements now for over 20 years.  We know that good legal advice is expensive and  in most cases, if the case is strong, we can work with you to find a way of bringing the claim. Costs will be discussed with you in detail before you have to pay anything.

Cohabitation agreements are used by people who live together to record their legal and beneficial ownership in their shared property and to regulate their financial and living arrangements, both during cohabitation and if they ever cease to live together.

The parties to the agreement do not have to be in a romantic relationship, but they can be. Often, cohabitation agreements are used by couples who have decided not to marry or enter into a civil partnership. The property concerned can be rented, owned solely by one cohabitee, owned by one or more cohabitees together or with a third party, or owned jointly by cohabitees in equal or unequal shares. Whatever the situation, it can be written into the agreement.

Having a cohabitation agreement in place and discussing each person’s rights and obligations at the outset of living together can help parties to avoid the personal negativity, cost and uncertainty of litigation if cohabitation ends. Cohabitation agreements can help to provide a sense of reassurance and financial security for the parties. For example, provisions can be put in place for financial support for the former partner if the relationship ever ends, particularly if they have children together.

There is some uncertainty about whether the terms of a cohabitation agreement will be upheld and enforced by the court, however, the general view is that if the cohabitation agreement is properly drafted as a legal contract, then it is more likely to be enforceable. Cohabitation agreements can be a complex area of law and therefore if you wish to discuss this further we would advise that you speak with one of our specialist family solicitors.

Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.

It is possible to review working arrangements for contractors before the new rules come into effect. This will require immediate action.

You could consider terminating current contracts and entering into new terms that reflect working arrangements for a self-employment arrangement.

Another possibility is encouraging contractors to abandon the PSC model and provide services under a compliant umbrella company.

In the event of a determination of employed status you should seek to enter new terms that at the very least reflect the new tax arrangements .

Be careful, there is now a cap on the number of employees you can have on furlough at one time.

The number of employees you can claim for in any claim period starting from 1 July cannot exceed the maximum number of employees you claimed for under any claim ending by 30 June 2020. So this cap is going to be specific to each employer.

It may catch out, in particular, employers who had been rotating employees on furlough.