How long do I have to contest the validity of a Will?

As above, employees must not leave their home unless they have a ‘reasonable excuse’.

Anybody who wishes to make a claim for provision under the 1975 Act must be issue their claim at court within 6 months of the Grant of Probate being issued in the deceased’s estate.

This does mean that it is quite important to act quickly if you believe that you may wish to bring a claim under the 1975 Act against an estate.  Whilst it is possible to make an application for financial provision more than 6 months after the issue of the Grant of Probate, the court would need to be satisfied with the reasons which are provided for the delay.

Sponsors should update the proposed start date by adding a sponsor note to the CoS via the Sponsor Management System.
Does a sponsor need to report a change in workplace if a Tier 2 visa holder is working from home as a result of Covid-19?

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.