header-logo header-logo

07 November 2009
Issue: 7392 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Unmarried intestacy rights

Unmarried couples could receive the same rights on intestacy as spouses, if they have had a child together or have lived together continuously for more than five years.

Tens of thousands of people die intestate in the UK each year, creating financial and emotional difficulties for the families concerned.

In its consultation paper, Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death, published last week, the Law Commission proposed sweeping changes to inheritance and testacy law.

Where cohabiting couples have lived together for more than two but less than five years, the surviving partner would be entitled to half the share of the estate that a surviving spouse would have received. The cohabitant would receive nothing if the deceased was still married or in a civil partnership at the time of death.

However, the proposals fail to convince family law solicitor Christina Blacklaws, senior partner at Blacklaws Davis, who warns the proposals could be “unworkable”. “We have to ensure that any changes to the law are clear and fair,” she says. 

“For example, an unmarried partner without children would need to show that they had lived together ‘continuously’ for five years under the proposals to gain the same share of the deceased partner’s estate as a spouse. This is bound to lead to difficulties of proof, and with it possible challenge from other potential beneficiaries.”

The Law Commissioners also propose abolishing the current rule that children who are adopted after the death of a parent lose their right to inherit from that parent on turning 18.

Where there are no children, the commissioners proposed that the surviving spouse inherit the whole estate rather than, as currently happens, share everything over £450,000 with any surviving brothers and sisters.

The consultation period closes on 28 February 2010. A draft Bill is expected in late 2011.

 

Issue: 7392 / Categories: Legal News
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