What if there is no Will? Can I challenge what I would receive ?

The recommendation is every 3 years, however it is recommended that MHFAs receive regular ongoing training and support.

Parental alienation is where one parent adversely influences their child in a way that causes the child to develop hostile feelings towards the other parent for no valid reason.

Examples of behaviour that can lead to parental alienation can range from frowning or ignoring the child whenever the other parent is mentioned, to one parent bad mouthing the other parent. Behaviour that can cause parental alienation is in essence, anything that causes the child to perceive the other parent in a negative light, such as one parent encouraging the child to be disrespectful towards or behave badly towards the other parent, lying to the child to make the other parent appear in a negative light or not passing on telephone messages or gifts.

It should be noted that the court has absolute discretion to make any order it sees as necessary when considering the arrangements for children and therefore if the court determines that there has been parental alienation it can make an order to alter the amount of time that the child spends with each parent, or it can in exceptional cases make an order changing which parent the child lives with.

No, government advice remains that if employees can work from home, they should continue to do so in order to minimise social contact across the country in order to keep infection rates down.

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.

Some commercial tenants have queried whether the current situation is a force majeure which may allow it to terminate the lease. Clauses which allow a party to terminate a lease for a force majeure event or, to put it another way, an “act of God”, are however extremely rare in modern commercial leases. Even if there is such a provision in your lease, it would need to be drafted to apply to an outbreak of disease.