Category: Articles

A new era for Worker’s Rights:

Posted on by Nina Francis

Understanding the Employment Rights Bill

The UK government has introduced what it calls the biggest upgrade to employment rights in a generation. The Employment Rights Bill, unveiled in October 2024, promises sweeping changes that will fundamentally reshape the relationship between employers and employees across the country. The main focus points are as follows:-

Protection from Day One

Perhaps the most significant change for workers is the removal of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims. Under the new legislation, it is proposed that employees will have the right to challenge unfair dismissal from their very first day at work. While employers will still be able to use a statutory probation period to assess new hires, this change marks a substantial shift in the balance of power, particularly for those in precarious employment situations.

The bill also tackles the controversial practice of ‘fire and rehire,’ where employers dismiss staff and rehire them on worse terms. These dismissals will be considered automatically unfair unless businesses can demonstrate they genuinely had no alternative.

An End to Exploitative Zero-Hours Contracts

For the millions of workers on zero-hours contracts, relief is on the horizon. The bill introduces rights to guaranteed hours based on regular working patterns, reasonable notice of shift changes, and crucially, payments when shifts are cancelled at short notice. These measures aim to provide a baseline of security for workers who have long faced one-sided flexibility that benefits only employers.

Strengthened Sick Pay and Family Leave

The reforms to Statutory Sick Pay remove both the lower earnings limit and the waiting period, meaning workers will receive sick pay from day one regardless of their salary level. This change will particularly benefit lower-paid workers who have historically been excluded from statutory sick pay protection.

Family-friendly provisions receive a significant boost too. Paternity leave and unpaid parental leave will become day-one rights, while new mothers will enjoy enhanced protection against dismissal for six months after returning to work. A new right to unpaid bereavement leave acknowledges the need for time to grieve without fear of losing one’s job.

Better Flexible Working and Harassment Protections

The existing right to request flexible working, already a day-one entitlement, will be strengthened. Employers will need to provide clear explanations when rejecting requests and ensure their decisions are reasonable rather than arbitrary.

On workplace safety, employers will be required to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent sexual harassment and will be held accountable for harassment by third parties such as customers or clients. These measures reflect growing recognition that workplace culture must change.

Easier Access to Justice

Workers will have twice as long to bring employment tribunal claims, with the deadline extending from three to six months. A new Fair Work Agency will consolidate enforcement of various employment rights and will have the power to bring cases on behalf of workers, potentially removing the financial and emotional burden many face when challenging their employers.

The Road Ahead

Most of these reforms are not expected to take effect until 2026 at the earliest, with consultations ongoing to finalise the details. The government insists it has worked closely with both businesses and trade unions to develop measures that are both pro-worker and pro-business.

For employees, these changes represent the most comprehensive upgrade to workplace rights in decades. From greater job security to better work-life balance and stronger protections against exploitation, the Employment Rights Bill promises to deliver meaningful improvements to working life for millions across the UK.

The question now is not whether these changes will happen, but how effectively they will be implemented and enforced. For workers who have long called for greater protection and dignity at work, this legislation offers genuine hope for a fairer future.

If you would like support in navigating these changes, please contact Nina Francis on 020 3831 2664 or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

A Guide to Adoption

Posted on by Helen Warren

Adoption is the legal process by which a child or group of siblings who cannot be brought up within their birth family become full, permanent and legal members of their new adoptive family. An adoption order ends the parental responsibility of any person or local authority and gives the adopters sole parental responsibility for the child. Where a birth parent does not consent to an adoption, the court can dispense with that consent if it determines that the parent cannot be found, lacks capacity to give consent, or if the child’s welfare necessitates it. 

A recent High Court case has highlighted the finality of adoption orders, emphasizing that they can only be revoked under exceptional circumstances. The case involved the birth mother of two children, aged 12 and 6 who were adopted in 2019 and 2018 respectively. She sought to overturn the adoption orders and gain contact with the children, but her applications were dismissed.

She alleged procedural and legal irregularities during the original adoption process, including duress, racism and insufficient consideration of her children’s welfare. However, Mr. Justice Trowell found no evidence to support these claims.

“The jurisdiction to revoke adoption orders is strictly limited to cases of fundamental procedural irregularity,” stated Mr. Justice Trowell. He noted the adoption orders were made lawfully and could not be overturned on welfare grounds.

The birth mother also sought permission to apply for contact with her children. The court denied her request, finding her ongoing refusal to accept the adoption posed a risk to the children’s stability. The judge cited evidence of potential harm, including her past comments to one of the children, such as her claim that “adopters kill the children they adopt.” While rejecting her application, Mr. Justice Trowell permitted the continuation of existing indirect “letterbox” contact but urged the birth mother’s messages be reviewed before being passed on to the children.

Mr. Justice Trowell emphasised that the welfare of the children, who are now settled with their adoptive families, remained the paramount concern.

In a different case the Court of Appeal confirmed that the court, not the local authority, is responsible for determining the nature and extent of post-adoption contact with the birth family. 

The Court of Appeal gave its judgment in the case of Re S examining the circumstances in which the family court might be expected to make an order requiring a child placed for adoption to have contact with a sibling who is not being adopted. 

Commonly adoptive families have arrangements for indirect contact with birth parents or siblings. Increasingly there are arrangements for some direct contact with siblings or birth parents. Despite this, there has been little change in the court’s approach to making orders for contact with birth families when children are to be adopted. In 2019 Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, said  that “it will only be in an extremely unusual case that a court will make an order stipulating contact arrangements to which the adopters do not agree” (Re B (A Child) (Post Adoption Contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29).

The recent case of Re S reiterates the requirement for family court judges to focus on what contact arrangements will be in the best interests of each and every child being placed for adoption and may point to a likelihood of contact orders being made more often in the future. 

The case centred on whether the family court should make an order for direct contact between a boy aged two, ‘S’, who is to be placed for adoption and his brother ‘R’, aged eight, who is in long-term care. Both children had been removed from their parents’ care in proceedings brought by the local authority because the judge was satisfied that they were at risk of significant harm from their parents. Whilst R is to stay in long-term care, the court made a placement order for S. This means the local authority can start the process of finding prospective adopters for him, matching S with them, and placing him in their care. The prospective adopters would then apply to the court for an adoption order to become S’s legal parents. 

The local authority’s plan for S was that once he was placed for adoption, he would have indirect contact with R, but also direct contact twice a year so that the sibling relationship could continue. The court approved that plan. However, the question was whether the judge should make an order under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,  requiring the prospective adopters to ensure direct contact between S and R, or whether there would an expectation of direct contact, that is not legally enforceable, meaning it would ultimately be a decision for the prospective adopters.  The judge decided there should not be an order for contact between R and S. His main reason was that an order requiring that there must be direct sibling contact would make it harder to find adopters for S, reducing the chance that he could be adopted at all. The birth parents appealed. 

Although the appeal was unsuccessful, the Court of Appeal gives important guidance for the family court to consider when determining future contact arrangements which are required in every case where a child is to be placed for adoption, as follows:

  1. There needs to be a distinction between direct contact with siblings and direct contact with birth parents.
  2. The risk of an order for contact deterring potential adopters cannot be the determining factor in every case. There will be cases – like Re S – where the risk of deterring adopters will lead the court to decide there should be no order for direct contact, but the court will need to see evidence that this is a real risk for children and not just a theoretical or generic risk. 
  3. The court may consider making an order that allows for some flexibility in birth family contact depending on how things are going as the child settles with prospective adopters, or setting a minimum level of contact  or it might consider in cases where no order is made recording its views and expectations for contact as non-legally binding recitals to the order.

Whether you are an adoptive parent or a birth parent our team is here to assist you with sensitivity with the adoption process. Contact Helen on 020 8290 7955 or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

Establishing Water Unite as a Charity

Posted on by Peter Spencer

In October 2024 Wellers Law Group successfully registered Water Unite as a charity with the Charity Commission. Water Unite are a grant-maker but also invest into a social investment fund ‘Water Unite Impact’, a fund established by Water Unite and Wellers’ investment management arm, Wellers Impact, which makes investments that align with Water Unite’s charitable objects.

Background

To give some context to this registration, in 2014, the Law Commission published a report on social investments being undertaken by charities following concerns regarding perceived “legal barriers” in the sector.

These barriers included cases such as Cowan v Scargill (1985) in which the High Court held that trustees must prioritise the “financial interests” of the beneficiaries above ethical considerations as well as the lack of an explicit statutory power allowing charities to make investments for both financial return and to achieve a social outcome.

The Law Commission’s report confirmed that this context had led to a “chilling effect” on trustees’ willingness to invest in social enterprises and recommended that a new power be granted to charities to specifically allow them to make social investments. As a result, the Charities (Protection of Social Investments Act) Act 2016 was enshrined in law.

The 2016 Act and other initiatives within the sector have led to considerable growth in the social investment space, with the value of the UK social investment market rising from around £830 million in 2011 to over £10 billion in 2023.

With this significant growth and the opportunities these afforded, Water Unite approached our firm and Wellers Impact, to establish both:-

  • Water Unite as a grant-making charity with the charitable purposes of tackling global water poverty, supporting sanitation projects and reducing plastic pollution in developing countries; and
  • A social impact fund (Water Unite Impact (WUI)) that invests in Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) globally, including the Global South, with the aim of both achieving both a financial return and furthering Water Unite’s charitable purposes.

WUI was to be established on a blended finance model, whereby Water Unite and other grant-making Charities would, through their investment, take on a greater level of risk (‘Catalytic Capital’) so as to attract Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) and other institutional investors, who ‘but-for’ the Catalytic Capital would not otherwise invest in WUI and make other social investments (the ‘But-For Principle’). 

Flow of Funds Structure

We structured Water Unite and WUI so that:-

  • corporates and individuals can make donations to Water Unite and obtain the relevant tax benefits in doing so. Water Unite looks, in particular, to attract donations from retailers through a micro-levy on sales of goods.

For example Co-op, Robinsons and Elior (amongst other – see a full list of Water Unite’s corporate partners here) have pledged a donation of 1p from every bottle of water sold;

  • Water Unite, charities, DFIs and other institutional investors can invest in WUI to both achieve a financial return, create impact in furtherance of WU’s objects and use those returns in furtherance of their own purposes;

Flow of Funds illustration:

Flow of funds 1

Decision Making Structure

With regard to decision-making powers, Water Unite and Wellers Impact entered into an agreement (the WUI Agreement) whereby:-

Water Unite have the right for individuals with the relevant skills and experience to attend WUI investment committee meetings with the purpose of:-

  • ensuring that investments being considered, further WU’s charitable purposes; and
  • reporting the social impact achieved by WUI back to the WU Board of Trustees.

decision making structure

Outcome

Water Unite achieved charitable status in October 2024 and WUI have as of today’s date made onward social investments in some of the following small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs):-

outcome

To further describe the activities of one partner, Jibu pairs financing with an innovative franchise model to empower entrepreneurs to provide clean drinking water for their communities.

With decentralised, on-site production, Jibu franchises are able to sell high volumes of water directly from their retail points to end-customers across Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, DRC, Zambia and Burundi.

For further information please see Water Unite’s Impact Report here

We are also very pleased to announce that the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) have made a commitment in principle of US$7.5million to WUI US Government Backs Water Unite Impact to Fund the Water Sector’s Missing Middle in Emerging Markets exemplifying that the But-For Principle is achieving its purpose. We wish Water Unite well for the future and continue to provide ongoing legal support.

If you are looking to establish a Charitable Foundation with an innovative financing model or an existing Foundation looking to undertake social investments, please do get in touch.

Contact Peter Spencer on 020 7481 6390

Or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

What is Reasonable Financial Provision?

Posted on by Sasha Burl

What is ‘reasonable financial provision’ under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the Act’) and what exactly is taken into consideration when making a claim?

The Act enables certain people who have not been left sufficient monies under a Will to bring a claim for reasonable financial provision from the Deceased’s Estate.

The Act sets out who is eligible to apply. They will need to be a “connected person” which includes a spouse or civil partner, a former spouse or civil partner, a child of the Deceased, a partner of the Deceased or any other person who was being financial maintained by the Deceased immediately before their death.

In a recent case, Wellers were instructed by Executors of an Estate to defend a claim made by the Deceased’s relatives who claimed that the Deceased was providing for their family financially before her death and that without any financial provision from the Estate, they would be living in poverty. They were able to bring a claim as “…any other person who was being financial maintained by the Deceased immediately before their death…”

The first question was whether financial provision was being made before the Deceased’s death, and if so, how much. We also needed to consider whether the payments being made immediately before death were considered reasonable financial provision. Reasonable financial provision is defined in the Act as “…such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance…”

Although the Claimants were able to show that the Deceased had in fact been making payments to them, they could not show that the payments being made amounted to reasonable financial provision as they were unable to produce evidence of their income and expenditure showing their needs.

There were also unable to show that regular payments were being made immediately before the Deceased’s death. In fact, the evidence revealed that no payments had been made by the Deceased to the Claimants for six months prior to death so the Court concluded that the limited payments made to the Claimants by the Deceased would not amount to reasonable financial provision based on the evidence supplied.

The Claimants produced thousands of pages of bank statements, which simply did not support their claim that they had been receiving any significant or regular payment from the Deceased before her death. The Claimants failed to show that any payments they had been receiving prior to the Deceased’s death amounted to a contribution towards their reasonable needs. 

Due to the Claimants lack of evidence in support of their claim, we made an application for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the Claimants did not have a real prospect of success. This application was successful, and the Claimants were ordered to pay our clients’ costs.

As stated above, for a Claimant to be successful in a claim for financial provision on the basis that they were being financially supported by the Deceased, they must establish that they are a “connected person” and then satisfy all other requirements under the Inheritance Act.

Every case is different, and what may be established as reasonable financial provision in one case, does not necessarily set the threshold for reasonable financial provision in another. The Court is required to consider all of the circumstances of a case to include the relationship the Claimant had with the Deceased, the financial position of them before the Deceased died, the financial position of the Claimant after the Deceased’s death and the financial circumstances of all beneficiaries.

Therefore, there is no specific threshold for what is deemed as reasonable financial provision. Every case should be assessed on its own merit, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and potentially the financial position before and after the Deceased’s death, of all parties involved.  

Here at Wellers, we can help you navigate through these often difficult and sensitive claims whilst protecting your interests as each claim is considered carefully on a case-by-case basis.  Do not hesitate to contact Sasha Burl today on 01732 446372 or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

Busting myths and misconceptions about Trusts

Posted on by Tara Edwards

Trusts can be an incredibly helpful tool when used correctly. They can be utilised for inheritance tax planning, family estate planning, tax mitigation, asset protection, to name but a few. However, we often find that people rely on common myths and misconceptions about trusts as a whole when deciding whether they are suitable for them, and these myths and misconceptions can be very misleading.

Before we dive into things, here’s a bit of background on Trusts –

Trusts can be created during your lifetime, via your Will and even by the beneficiaries in your Will, if they choose to execute a Deed of Variation. A Deed of Variation is a document that can be drawn up within 2 years of the date of death, which allows beneficiaries to alter their entitlement under the Will of the deceased person. A beneficiary could for example choose to set up a Trust for the benefit of their children, rather than receiving the inheritance themselves and it is then treated as if this came directly from the testator/testatrix.

Trusts, whether established during your lifetime or on your death, come in various shapes and sizes, which leads us on to our first common misconception: –

Trusts are one size fits all

It appears that a common belief is that a Trust is a one size fits all arrangement, whereas in reality, Trusts are a highly customisable tool that can be crafted in ways that are specific to each person’s requirements. Professional expertise is essential in ensuring that the Trust you are setting up is perfectly tailored to meet your personal circumstances and requirements

Trusts are only for the super wealthy

This is a comment we hear a lot but one that is not strictly true. Of course, there are costs associated with setting up and managing a trust, however, you could set up a trust with as little at £10 in it. These are known as Pilot Trusts and can be set up in preparation for assets to be transferred into in the future.

Trusts can also be used for asset protection, regardless of how big or small the asset(s). Trusts such as Life Interest Trusts can be ideal in scenarios such as second marriages, or when one spouse passes away and wants to ensure that some, or all, of their estate is protected for their ultimate beneficiaries, while also still providing for their widow.

Trusts are a tax avoidance scheme

The above is a very common misconception, normally in conjunction with point 2, however, Trusts are not a magical tax avoidance scheme. Can Trusts be utilised in effective tax planning in order to mitigate inheritance tax, yes, when used correctly, however, Trusts come with their own regimes and are subject to income tax and capital gains tax in similar ways to how a person is. Trusts even have additional tax charges such as 10-year anniversary charges and exit charges.

Furthermore, depending on the type of trust you are setting up, and how much you are gifting into the trust, you could potentially face a lifetime inheritance tax charge of 20% immediately upon gifting. This would be the case if you gift more than your available Nil Rate Band worth of assets into the Trust. The current Nil Rate Band is £325,000, so if you have made no gifts in the 7 years prior to setting up the Trust, then you can gift the full Nil Rate Band into the Trust without incurring a lifetime inheritance tax charge. If however, for example you gift £400,000 into the Trust, then you would be charged 20% on the £75,000 over the Nil Rate Band.

If spouses are both gifting into a Trust, both of their Nil Rate Bands can be utilised, so a total of £650,000 could potentially be gifted into the Trust without incurring the 20% lifetime inheritance tax charge.

You would then have to wait 7 years for this gift to be removed from your estate and to then be able to gift a further Nil Rate Sum balance in the Trust without incurring the lifetime tax charge.

I can give away my assets but still benefit from them

The government has a set of anti-avoidance legislation known as the Gifts with Reservation of Benefits rules. These state that a person cannot dispose of an asset e.g. gifting it to someone or into a trust, and retain a benefit from the asset, if their intention is to remove it from their estate, regardless of if they survive past 7 years.

 An idea that clients bring forward regularly is along the lines of ‘’my friend told me to just put our home into a trust or into our kids’ names, continue to live there and then we wont be taxed on it when we die’’ and this is categorically wrong. If you are to gift your main residence either directly to your children, or into a Trust and intend to still live at the property for free, then the whole value of your home would still be included in your estate for inheritance tax purposes, regardless of how long ago you gifted it away. This can cause massive problems for your estate, since the asset doesn’t legally belong to you, so therefore your estate does not have control over selling it to pay for the possible inheritance tax bill your estate could be liable for. The only way around this would be to pay a full market rent for the time that you are still living in the property that you have gifted away, but this is often not something people wish to do.

The same applies for if you gift assets such as cash into a Trust. If you were to benefit from the Trust that you set up, this is known as a Settlor Interested trust, because you as the creator (Settlor) of the trust are still receiving an interest in the Trust, and therefore the value of your gift would still be included in your estate upon your death. If you want the value of the gift to be removed from your estate after 7 years, then you cannot receive any benefit from it.

As soon as you give away your assets, you lose control

Now this ultimately depends how you intend to gift your assets. If you are outright gifting an asset to someone, then yes you would lose control over what happens with that asset going forward. However, if you were to gift assets into a Trust, for the benefit of your chosen beneficiaries, you can still retain control over those assets during your lifetime, by appointing yourself as a Trustee of the Trust upon creation.

It is still important to remember that you cannot retain a benefit from the trust while also removing it from your estate, however, simply acting as a trustee does not provide you with any benefit from the Trust, it simply allows you to make decisions regarding the Trusts assets and how they are to be utilised and distributed amongst your pool of beneficiaries. This could be especially useful if for example you are wanting to benefit your children and/or grandchildren, but you don’t fully trust them to be responsible with the funds absolutely. You could opt to put your assets into the Trust and then when you feel it appropriate to use the assets to benefit your beneficiaries, you can make the decision to do so.

Considering a Trust ?

Due to many of the above points, people often do not fully consider Trusts when it comes to estate planning. You do not need to have a complicated family situation or be particularly wealthy in order to benefit from the use of Trusts. Trusts are a flexible and practical tool to be used for planning, protecting, safeguarding and efficiently managing your estate.

If you wish to explore more about how a trust might work for you and your family, please get in touch with a member of our team at enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com or contact Tara directly at tara.edwards@wellerslawgroup.com

Keeping it in the Family – Are Family Investment Companies the New Trusts?

Posted on by Wellers

Family Investment Companies (FICs) have been used as part of succession planning since changes to trust taxation were brought in by the Finance Act 2006.   Their use is likely to rise due to the Inheritance Tax net widening as a result of the latest budget, particularly from April 2027 when pension pots will be included in estates for Inheritance Tax purposes.

What is a Family Investment Company (FIC)?

An FIC is simply a company that has been established with the specific purpose of meeting the needs of a single family.  It is generally created to hold investments for the family.

The investments within the company would typically include equities and/or property.

How can a FIC be used in Estate Planning?

Estate planning is not just about saving Inheritance Tax. Although this is a key objective, it is also about maintaining and protecting family wealth.

A company is a structure that enables ownership to be separated.  Ownership is with the Shareholders but the day-to-day management and control of the business is with the Directors.  Using a company enables a family to pass wealth down through generations without giving up control of how the wealth is managed.

Capital is also not easily extracted, which helps ensure it is preserved for future generations.  The constitution of a FIC can also help protect against the impact of divorce by encouraging the use of marital agreements and by controlling the ownership of shares.

Inheritance Tax Saving – 3 Key Benefits:-

  • The reduction of the estate of the founders of the FIC.   They will make a gift on the formation of the company, by either passing shares or cash for the subscription of shares to children/grandchildren.  Sometimes cash is also gifted to a family trust, which will then subscribe for shares. These initial gifts save Inheritance Tax completely if the donor then survives 7 years;

  • To the extent shares are held by family members and not the founders, the profits generated by the FIC will be outside the founders’ estate, saving further Inheritance Tax;

  • A FIC is not within the relevant property regime so is not subject to 10 year anniversary charges of 6% like a discretionary trust would be, or subject to exit charges.

Discretionary Trust vs FICs

 Discretionary TrustFIC
ControlThe trustees manage and control a discretionary trust and must do so for the benefit of their beneficiariesDirectors control a FIC on a day to day basis and have similar fiduciary duties to trustees, acting in the best interests of the company and its shareholders
Who Can BenefitA key advantage of a discretionary trust is that anyone within the class of beneficiaries can benefit.  A trust can also have a power to add new beneficiariesOnly shareholders can benefit from dividends and capital growth. A company can also employ anyone.
FundingA trust can be funded up to an individual’s available nil rate band (£325,000) but may be otherwise taxed at a lifetime Inheritance Tax rate of 20%Shares can be subscribed for in cash up to any value without tax charges.  If a FIC is established, shares should be subscribed for at their market rate to avoid tax charges
Tax on IncomeTrusts pay income tax at 45% or 39.5% on dividend incomeFICs pay corporation tax at 25% or 0% on dividend income
Tax on GainsTrusts pay capital gains tax at 24%.  Annual exemption is £3,000FICs have no annual exemption and pay corporation tax on capital gains at 25%
Distributions of IncomeA beneficiary receives income with a tax credit at 45% which can be reclaimed if the beneficiary is a lower rate tax payerIncome is paid in the form of dividends from post-tax profits and taxed at the individual’s appropriate dividend rate.  An annual exemption of £500 is available
Distributions of CapitalCapital distributed from a relevant property trust may trigger an exit charge but is not taxable on the beneficiaryCapital is not easily distributed to shareholders.  Any profit element will give rise to either an income tax charge or a capital gains tax charge
Inheritance TaxA trust will pay tax on every 10 year anniversary at a rate of 6% on the market value of all assets above the nil rate bandA FIC does not pay inheritance tax but a shareholder will pay inheritance tax on the value of shares within their estate – this value may be discounted to reflect a minority interest
PrivacyWhilst all trusts now have to be registered with HMRC, the register is not a public documentCompanies have to be registered at Companies House and details of shareholders will be available.  Company’s articles of association are public

Trusts have always been a traditional feature of estate planning, however as many of the tax advantages will survive the recent tax changes, FICs are becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to trusts.

In some ways trusts and FICs are similar.  For example, they are both essentially set up for the management of assets for the benefit of the underlying beneficiaries and to preserve the family wealth. 

Trusts still certainly have a place in estate planning, and have perhaps always been the default position when wanting to gift assets whilst also retaining an element of control.  For the higher net valued individuals who wish to gift significant values and where perhaps flexibility and family involvement are priorities as well as investment growth, a FIC may be the better option.  A combination of the two can also provide for an effective structure.  For example, the addition of a discretionary family trust within the FIC structure could offer more protection of capital assets, particularly in the event of divorce.

Ultimately, as with any structure there are pitfalls, nuances and anti-avoidance rules to consider.  Setting up a FIC is not a one size fits all exercise.  It is a bespoke structure and multi-disciplinary advice should be sought to ensure it is appropriate to meet your family’s needs.

Here at Wellers we can help. Please contact us on 020 7481 2422 or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

Protecting Your Property and Legacy: Lessons from Standish v Standish for Unmarried Couples

Posted on by Daniela Koceva

If you’re in a long-term relationship but not married, you might assume that the law will protect you and your partner in the same way it protects spouses. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The recent Supreme Court decision in Standish v Standish reinforces a crucial message: unless your intentions are clear and legally documented, you may be left with far less than you expected—whether after a breakup or the death of a partner.

In Standish v Standish, a husband had transferred substantial wealth into his wife’s name during their marriage, largely for tax planning and estate purposes. When they later divorced, the wife claimed that the assets had become shared marital property. But the court disagreed. It found that the money had been kept separate, earmarked for their children, and never treated as “family money.” The takeaway? Even if an asset is initially yours but then transferred in your partner’s name, it doesn’t automatically mean it belongs to both of you—and vice versa.

So what does this mean for unmarried couples?

1. Legal ownership doesn’t tell the whole story

The court in Standish confirmed that what matters is the couple’s shared intention, not just whose name is on the title or account. If you buy a property together or contribute financially (or even through unpaid work like home improvements or childcare), but don’t formalise your agreement, you may struggle to claim your fair share later.

2. Make a Declaration of Trust

When buying a property, especially if you’re contributing unequally to the deposit or mortgage, a Declaration of Trust is essential. This document clearly states who owns what share and how the proceeds will be split if the property is sold. Without it, courts must rely on indirect evidence of your intentions, which is often unclear or disputed.

3. Write a cohabitation agreement

This legal agreement can set out who pays what, who owns which assets, and what happens if you split up. It’s especially important if one partner moves into a home owned by the other, or if one of you is financially dependent on the other.

4. Don’t assume you’ll inherit

Unmarried partners do not automatically inherit anything if the other dies without a will. If you want your partner to receive your share of the home, savings, or personal possessions, you must make a valid will. Without it, your estate will pass to your closest blood relatives—even if your partner lived with you for decades.

5. Plan for the future—now

Standish v Standish makes one thing very clear: good intentions aren’t enough. If you want to protect yourself and your partner, take practical legal steps now. That means making wills, declaring ownership shares, and seeking advice on how best to secure your position—whether for a shared life or an unforeseen end to it.

At its heart, this case is a reminder: if you want to be treated as a couple in the eyes of the law, you must plan like one.

Here at Wellers we can help – Please contact Daniela on 020 8290 7979 or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

ATTENTION LANDLORDS- Changes with the Upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill

Posted on by Priyanka Kumar

As housing law continues to evolve, the proposed Renters’ Rights Bill is expected to come into effect later this year or in early 2026 and set to bring significant changes to the eviction process in the private rental sector. These reforms aim to strengthen tenant protections but also introduce new challenges for landlords seeking to regain possession of their properties. Understanding these changes is crucial for landlords, tenants, and solicitors.

Background: Eviction Under Current Law

In England and Wales, landlords commonly use two legal routes to evict tenants:

  • Section 21 Notices: Often called “no-fault” evictions, Section 21 allows landlords to regain possession without needing to provide a reason, provided the fixed term of the tenancy has ended or a periodic tenancy exists.
  • Section 8 Notices: Used when landlords allege specific breaches of the tenancy agreement, such as rent arrears or damage to the property. This route requires proving fault on the tenant’s part.

Both procedures often are dealt with at court hearings if tenants contest the eviction, with the landlord bearing the burden of following strict procedural rules.

What Does the Upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill Propose?

The Renters’ Rights Bill seeks to overhaul eviction processes to offer greater security to tenants and curb what some perceive as unfair evictions. The key proposed changes impacting landlords include:

1. Abolition or Reform of Section 21 “No-Fault” Evictions

  • One of the most anticipated reforms is the removal or significant limitation of Section 21 evictions. Under the new bill:
  • Landlords may no longer be able to evict tenants without demonstrating mandatory or discretionary grounds to do so.
  • Tenancies could become more secure, potentially transitioning into indefinite agreements unless there is a breach by the tenant.
  • This change would mean landlords must rely on fault-based grounds—primarily through Section 8 proceedings—to regain possession.

2. Stricter Grounds for Section 8 Evictions

The bill proposes to tighten the requirements for Section 8 notices by:

  • Narrowing the acceptable grounds for eviction.
  • Raising the evidential standards landlords must meet.
  • Potentially extending notice periods to provide tenants more time to respond or rectify issues.
  • This would make fault-based evictions more procedurally complex and lengthier, increasing the risk and legal cost for landlords.

3. Enhanced Tenant Protections During Proceedings

The legislation aims to improve tenants’ rights during eviction cases, including:

  • Improved access to legal advice.
  • Introduction of pre-action protocols requiring landlords to engage in dispute resolution efforts before commencing court proceedings.
  • Such measures could delay or deter eviction actions, placing additional burdens on landlords.

So What Challenges Will Landlords Will Face?

The effect of these changes will create several challenges including:

  • Increased Difficulty in Regaining Possession: Without Section 21 as a straightforward tool, landlords will face longer and more uncertain eviction processes.
  • Higher Costs: More complex procedures and extended timelines will increase legal and administrative costs.
  • Greater Risk of Protracted Disputes: Enhanced tenant rights and requirements for alternative dispute resolution may prolong disagreements.

What Advice Will Solicitors Give to Landlords?

Solicitors specialising in landlord-tenant law are likely to advise landlords to:

  • Maintain Full Documentation: Keeping detailed records of rent payments, property condition reports, and communications is essential to support any fault-based eviction claim.
  • Engage Early with Tenants: Proactive communication and attempts to resolve disputes before court can help comply with pre-action protocols and avoid costly litigation.

What further possible legislative developments could happen?

  • Introduction of indefinite or longer-term tenancy agreements, replacing fixed-term leases.
  • Mandatory pre-action protocols, requiring landlords to make genuine efforts to resolve disputes before applying to the court.
  • Enhanced enforcement powers for regulatory bodies overseeing housing standards and tenancy disputes.
  • Potential changes to notice periods, making them longer and more tenant friendly.
  • Increased penalties for landlords who fail to comply with new legal requirements, such as deposit protection, gas and EPC certification,  or property safety standards.

Conclusion

The upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill signals a transformative shift in the landlord-tenant relationship, prioritising tenant security and fair treatment. While this reflects positive social goals, it introduces substantive challenges for landlords seeking to manage and regain control of their properties. Navigating this new landscape will require careful legal guidance, thorough preparation, and a willingness to engage constructively with tenants.

Here at Wellers, we can help ensure compliance with evolving regulations and to protect your interests in an increasingly tenant-friendly legal environment.

Do not hesitate to contact Priyanka Kumar on 01732 446367 or Jonathan Tyler on 01732 446361 or email enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com

Fraudulent Calumny in Contested Probate: A Contentious Probate Solicitor’s Guide

Posted on by Krishna Patel

Fraudulent calumny is a lesser known but powerful ground for challenging a will in contested probate disputes. It arises when one person deliberately poisons the testator’s mind against another potential beneficiary by making false and malicious allegations about their character. Unlike undue influence, fraudulent calumny does not involve coercion but instead relies on deception to manipulate the testator’s decision-making process.

For those facing a potential inheritance dispute, understanding fraudulent calumny is crucial in protecting testamentary freedom and ensuring that a will reflects the true wishes of the deceased.

What Is Fraudulent Calumny?

Fraudulent calumny is a type of fraud that can render a will invalid. It was defined in Re Edwards [2007] WTLR 1387, where Lewison J set out its key elements:

  1. False statements – Someone made untrue claims about you to the testator.
  2. Dishonesty or recklessness – They knew these claims were false or didn’t care whether they were true.
  3. Influence on the testator – The false statements persuade the testator to alter their will to reduce or remove your inheritance.
  4. Causation – The will was changed only because of these lies.

The Importance of Dishonesty

A key hurdle in fraudulent calumny cases is proving dishonesty. The Supreme Court, in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan and Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd, clarified that dishonesty is judged using an objective test:

“The fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the individual’s actual state of knowledge or belief. The question of whether the conduct was honest or dishonest is then determined by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people.”

This means that even if the defendant sincerely believed their statements, a claim for fraudulent calumny will fail if they were not acting dishonestly. This was demonstrated in Re Boyes, where a daughter falsely convinced her father that her brothers were untrustworthy, but since she genuinely believed it to be true, the will was upheld.

How Fraudulent Calumny Differs from Undue Influence

Fraudulent calumny and undue influence are often confused but are legally distinct:

Fraudulent CalumnyUndue Influence
Based on lies about another beneficiaryBased on pressure or coercion
The testator believes the lies and changes their willThe testator is forced into changing their will
Requires proof of dishonestyRequires proof of coercion

Recent Case Law on Fraudulent Calumny

Several recent cases illustrate how courts approach fraudulent calumny in contested probate claims:

  1. Whittle v Whittle [2022] EWHC 925 (Ch)

In this case, the testator left almost his entire estate to his daughter, Sonia, while his son, David, received only a few personal items. David alleged that Sonia had falsely accused him of theft and violence, which led their father to disinherit him. The court found:

  • The testator left almost his entire estate to his daughter, Sonia, giving his son, David, only a few personal belongings.
  • David claimed Sonia falsely told their father he was a thief and violent towards women.
  • The court found Sonia had lied to manipulate their father and declared the will invalid.
  • Speakman v Muir [2022]

A son challenged three wills made in quick succession by his elderly father, alleging that his father’s household assistant, Julie, had falsely told him that his son had stolen from him. The court found:

  • A son challenged three wills made by his father, which gradually cut him out of the estate.
  • The father’s household assistant, Julie, had falsely accused him of stealing.
  • The judge found the father was emotionally vulnerable and easily influenced, leading to the wills being set aside.
  • Nesbitt v Nicholson [2023]

The court reiterated the difficulty of proving fraudulent calumny, confirming that if the defendant genuinely believes what they are saying even if objectively false the claim will fail. This highlights the high burden of proof required to succeed.

These cases highlight that it is not enough to simply express negative opinions about a potential beneficiary, the allegations must be false and the defendant must have acted with dishonesty or reckless disregard for the truth.

How to prove Fraudulent Calumny

A claim for fraudulent calumny requires strong evidence, including:

  • Witness statements: Did anyone hear the false allegations being made?
  • Legal notes: A solicitor’s records may reveal concerns about influence.
  • Previous wills: Showing an unexpected change in inheritance.
  • Medical reports: If the testator was vulnerable, they may have been more easily misled.

Defending Against Fraudulent Calumny Claims

If a will is challenged on this ground, the defendant may argue:

  • The statements were true or made in good faith
  • The testator was aware of all facts and made a rational decision
  • The testator had independent legal advice before making the will

Fraudulent calumny remains a complex and high-risk ground for challenging a will, requiring clear evidence of dishonesty and causation. While recent case law highlights the potential success of such claims, the burden of proof remains high.

For an initial consultation, contact Krishna Patel on 01732 446371 or email krishna.patel@wellerslawgroup.com

Lessons from the Kids Company Judgment: Strengthening Charity Governance and Financial Oversight 

Posted on by Katherine Pipe

The High Court’s recent decision on the Charity Commission’s inquiry into Kids Company has important implications for all charity trustees. The judgment confirms that even well-intentioned, passionate leadership is not enough to protect a charity from serious governance failures and is a good moment to reflect on how we got here. This article sets out what happened in the Kids Company case, what the Commission and the courts found, and most importantly, what other charities can learn.

What Happened at Kids Company?

Kids Company was established in 1998 with the purpose of preservation of health for children in need of counselling, support and therapeutic use of the arts, by reason of their social or family circumstances. It received millions of pounds in public funding, including repeated government grants. In August 2015, Kids Company closed abruptly with many employees being made redundant triggering widespread concern and scrutiny from the media, government and the public.

The Charity Commission launched a statutory inquiry shortly after the closure, examining the charity’s governance, risk management, safeguarding, and financial practices. Its final report, published in February 2022, found significant mismanagement of the charity’s finances, particularly:
– Persistent cashflow crises
– Over-reliance on public funding
– Failure to build reserves or plan for financial shocks
– Weak financial oversight by the board

Crucially, the Commission did not find any dishonesty, bad faith, or personal gain by trustees or staff.

The Charity Commission’s statutory inquiry was paused when the Official Receiver initiated proceedings against all trustees who had been in office at or shortly before Kids Company’s collapse, along with the CEO. The Official Receiver sought to disqualify them under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which permits disqualification where a person is found to have engaged in unfit conduct while serving as a director of an insolvent company. The Official Receiver argued that the trustees and CEO were unfit because they had caused or allowed the charity to operate an unsustainable business model.

However, the High Court dismissed the claims. It found that the trustees and CEO were not unfit, but had made honest decisions in good faith, under difficult circumstances, and with the charity’s interests at heart. The court emphasised that the trustees had sought and followed professional advice, including financial guidance, and viewed this as evidence of responsible governance—even though the charity ultimately failed.


Several former trustees challenged the Commission’s statutory inquiry findings in the High Court by way of a judicial review. In May 2025, the Court upheld the Commission’s core conclusions, stating they were based on “ample evidence.” The Court confirmed that the Commission had not predetermined its findings and had acted within its statutory remit. While the Court identified two paragraphs in the statutory inquiry report that contained important errors, it found the Commission’s overall findings to be rational and reasonable.

Key Lessons for Trustees and Charity Leaders

The Kids Company case offers timely and vital governance lessons for all charities, regardless of size or purpose. Below are four key takeaways to help trustees fulfil their duties and protect their charities from similar risks:

1. Build Financial Resilience

The Charity Commission characterised Kids Company’s financial situation as a ‘hand-to-mouth’ existence. It found that by not prioritising the creation of adequate reserves, the trustees neglected their duty of care to both employees and donors. This highlights a crucial lesson for trustees: prioritising realistic budgeting, accurate financial forecasting, and establishing clear reserve policies is essential to protect your charity’s long-term sustainability and fulfil your duties as trustees.

2. Governance must evolve with Growth

The Charity Commission found that Kids Company maintained informal, founder-led governance structures even as it grew into a large, national charity, which may have contributed to its ultimate demise. Trustees must regularly review their governance structures to reflect changes in the charity’s scale, complexity, and risk profile. They should also be aware that founder-led leadership by a charismatic individual can obscure risks embedded in established ways of working. While founders bring passion and vision, it’s important to balance their influence with robust governance structures to ensure ongoing challenge and oversight.

3. Document Risk and Decision-Making

There were insufficient records for the Charity Commission to make findings in some areas of the statutory inquiry. Clear records of board discussions, risk assessments, and financial decisions are critical, not just for compliance, but to demonstrate accountability in the face of scrutiny. This is particularly important where decisions involve significant risk.

4. Take and Record Professional Advice

The High Court recognised that Kids Company’s trustees had sought and followed professional advice, including on financial matters. This was a significant factor in the Court’s decision not to disqualify them, despite the charity’s failure. Trustees should not hesitate to seek expert guidance (whether legal, financial, or operational) when navigating complex or high-risk decisions. Importantly, they should also ensure that this advice, and how it informed board decisions, is clearly documented. Doing so not only supports sound governance but also provides protection in the event of scrutiny.

How We Help Charities Stay Compliant and Resilient

As specialist charity lawyers, we help charities strengthen governance, manage risk, and remain compliant under increasing scrutiny from regulators, funders, and the public.

We support charities with:
– Governance health checks and structural reviews
– Trustee training on legal duties and best practice
– Financial oversight and reserves strategy guidance
– Risk management and safeguarding policies
– Support during Charity Commission inquiries or serious incidents
– Constitutional amendments and governance advice


Whether your charity is scaling up, managing public funds, or navigating internal changes, we can help you build strong, resilient systems for long-term success.

Contact Kate Pipe at kate.pipe@wellerslawgroup.com or call 020 7481 2422

If you would like to receive our newsletter please let us know here