My sister has passed away. She separated from her husband years ago although they never got divorced, so they are technically still married. My sister never made a Will. Will her husband inherit her estate?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has issued a number of guidance documents about the application of competition law rules during the coronavirus outbreak. In general, the competition law rules are being relaxed in very specific circumstances.

Physical bundles may not be regarded as safe for public health and there are obvious difficulties in providing them with the current restrictions in place. Electronic bundles should be provided in PDF format, preferably paginated, indexed and bookmarked. The bundles should only contain documents and authorities that are essential to the issues required to be decided at the remote hearing and should be filed with the court by email.

The Chief Coroner adopts the approach taken by the Lord Chief Justice in that no physical hearing should take place unless it is urgent and essential business, and it is safe for all involved. If a hearing is to take place, social distancing must be maintained. All hearings that can take place remotely should do so, if it is not possible for social distancing requirements to be met. The expectation is that some hearings will go ahead, most notably Rule 23 hearings. Coroners are reminded that they must however conduct any remote hearings from a court. Decisions as to the most appropriate approach will be left to the senior coroner in that jurisdiction.

As we have already seen, some inquests will be adjourned, most notably those with multiple witnesses and/or a jury.

The guidance stresses the need, when dealing with medical professionals, for coroners to recognise their primary clinical commitments, particularly in these high-pressured times. This could mean avoiding or deferring requests for lengthy reports/ statements and accommodating clinical commitments if clinicians are called as witnesses.

The guidance encourages proactive reviews of outstanding responses to Prevention of Future Death reports and extending timescales for Trusts to respond.

Unless the contrary is shown, the court presumes that parental involvement in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare. This does not dictate any particular division of time but reinforces the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both parents after family separation, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests.

Your ex-partner should not, therefore, stop you from seeing your child unless there are welfare reasons to do so. If they do, you can ultimately apply to the Court for a Child Arrangements Order which will set out who the child will live and spend time with. You ex- partner may be viewed unfavourably if they have unjustifiably stopped you seeing your child.  In the interim, try and come to some kind of agreement with your ex in order to maintain contact with your child even if that is supervised contact via a trusted third party like a grandparent or a friend or indirect contact via Zoom, Skype or Facetime. You should also ensure that your child does not get placed in to the middle of any arguments between you. Consider using parenting tools now available online such as Our Family Wizard and amicable co-parenting.

Tensions can often run high when a relationship breaks down. You should consider what arrangement is in the best interests of your child. If you are unable to reach an agreement with your ex about child arrangements, you should speak to a Family Solicitor or use an alternative dispute resolution service such as mediation or family therapy before issuing Court proceedings.

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.