header-logo header-logo

08 November 2018
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Proposed probate fee hikes slated as ‘new death tax’

Solicitors have expressed concern about a hike in probate fees to as high as £6,000.

The proposals, announced in a written statement by justice minister Lucy Frazer this week, are to replace the existing flat fee for probate of £155 for those applying with a solicitor or £215 for individuals with a sliding scale of fees.

Those at the lower end of the financial spectrum will benefit—the threshold for the value of estates paying the fees will rise from £5,000 to £50,000. That means about 25,000 estates each year will be exempt, Frazer said, while about 80% of families will pay £750 or less.

Estates worth £2m or more, however, could be charged the maximum fee, £6,000.

Frazer said: ‘Fees will never be more than 0.5% of the estate’s value… with all income going directly to our courts and tribunals.’

However, Nick Rucker, partner at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth, described the proposed increase, due to go ahead in April, as ‘a new death tax’.

‘It will present real problems for those who have land but don’t have cash,’ he said. ‘An example would be widows where the property remained in the name of a late husband: in such a case no inheritance tax would be payable, but a widow would still need to pay the much higher fee in order to get probate and the property transferred into her name.

‘It’s also potentially going to lose a lot of inheritance tax for the government and prove counterproductive as a measure. Many providers of “trusts to avoid probate” will get people to pay for setting up trusts in their lifetimes so that probate is not needed when they die.’

This week’s proposals represent a climbdown on controversial plans, announced last year and subsequently dropped before the 2017 general election, to hike probate fees to as high as £20,000.

Issue: 7816 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll