I don’t think that my mum knew what she was doing when she made her Will. How can I tell if she lacked capacity?
You may be concerned that a family member or friend did not understand what they were doing when they made their Will. The legal test for whether or not a testator had sufficient mental capacity to make a Will requires that:
- They understand the nature of the act of making a Will and its effect – in other words, that he or she understands that they are setting out how they wish for their estate to be distributed upon their death;
- The size of their estate;
- The individuals in respect of which they are morally bound to provide for and any consequences of not providing for these individuals; and
- That they are not suffering from any disorder of the mind which may effectively poison their feelings toward people who may otherwise expect to benefit from the estate.
The process of analysing whether or not a testator did lack the mental capacity to make a Will involves consideration of the evidence of the solicitor or Will maker involved in the preparation of the Will, the testator’s medical records and the witness evidence of other people who were involved in the testator’s life.
Related FAQs
In most circumstances, grandparents do not have an automatic legal right to see their grandchildren. They can, however, ask the Court for permission to apply for a Child Arrangements Order which will set out who the child is to spend time with. When deciding whether to grant permission, the Court will consider the nature of the proposed Application, the grandparent’s connection with the children and whether the application would disrupt the child. A successful permission Application will not automatically mean grandparents will get an Order to see the children, but it is the first stage of the 2 stage process completed.
If permission is granted, the Court will then determine the Application for a Child Arrangements Order. The Court will consider the welfare checklist (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1). The children’s best interests are the Court’s paramount consideration. The Court will take into account any hostility between the parents and the grandparents and consider whether there is any risk of emotional abuse to the children by being caught in the middle of an adult conflict.
If possible, any disagreements regarding grandparents seeing their grandchildren should be resolved through mediation, family therapy or any other alternative dispute method before the Court process is utilised. Grandparents should also be aware that although they will want to see their grandchildren as much as possible, this must be balanced against setting contact at a realistic level which is workable for the children in the circumstances of the case.
Dogs and other pets are often seen as a much loved member of the family but sadly when it comes to divorce, in the eyes of the law a pet falls into the same category as a TV or a toaster as nothing more than a person’s personal property. As such the court is likely to be more interested in who owns the dog by considering factors such as:
- who paid for the dog (ideally backed up with receipts)
- who is registered at the vet
- who is listed on the microchip database, and
- who is the provider of key supplies and food
This person is more likely to have a successful claim over the dog, even if the other party has a better emotional attachment and spent more time looking after the dog.
If it is unclear who owns the dog, a sympathetic judge may consider who is best placed to look after the dog but parties should be prepared for a fairly rough and ready decision. The court is often reluctant to deal with disputes such as pet ownership as it is more concerned with the bigger picture such as arrangements for the children and the overall financial division. It is therefore far preferable for the parties to reach an agreement themselves, perhaps with the assistance of mediation.
Read our recent article to find out more.
The vast majority of disputes settle without ever reaching a final hearing with something in the region of 2-5% of all cases actually ending up in court at a final trial. So whilst it is very unlikely you would need to attend a court hearing, it is always a possibility.
Furlough means temporary leave of absence. There is nothing to stop an employer seeking to agree a temporary leave of absence – with or without pay – with its workforce.
This could not be forced on an employee without significant risk. Without agreement, this would need fair selection and consultation – more on that later.
In most circumstances the answer will be no. It would be an infringement of their human rights. It could also be a criminal assault.
However where there is a high risk to employees of exposure to COVID-19, such as care homes and healthcare environments, you might be able to make it a requirement of their role to have the vaccine.
First, consider whether you need to have a blanket requirement covering all employees or whether only certain groups who work in the most high risk areas require the vaccine.
You will need to do a thorough risk assessment balancing the amount that the risk of exposure would be reduced against the interference with the employee’s human rights. Consideration will need to be given as to whether insisting on the vaccine is proportionate to the risk and whether other less invasive steps could be taken instead, such as maintaining social distancing, wearing a mask, washing hands.
Any requirement for employees to be vaccinated should be communicated clearly to employees and trade unions together with a clear explanation for why it is necessary.