Private Client Legal Updates (28 July 2021)

Wedlake Bell


We are a contemporary London law firm, rooted in tradition with a lasting legacy of client service. Founded in 1780, we recognise the long-standing relationships we have with our clients and how they have helped shape our past and provide a platform for our future. With 76 partners supported by over 300 lawyers and support staff, we operate on a four practice group model: private client, business services, real estate and dispute resolution. Our driving force is to empower our clients by providing quality legal advice, insight and intelligence that enables them to achieve their goals whether personal or business. We are large enough to advise on the most complex matters, but small enough to ensure that our people and our work remain exceptional and dynamic. Building relationships is at the heart of everything we do.
It has been reported that the Chancellor may postpone the Autumn 2021 Budget until Spring 2022 to allow more time for the economic impact of the pandemic and the end of the furlough scheme to become clear.
UK Family and Matrimonial
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on

A summary of key legal updates for the Private Client sector over the past week is as follows.  

Autumn Budget may be postponed

It has been reported that the Chancellor may postpone the Autumn 2021 Budget until Spring 2022 to allow more time for the economic impact of the pandemic and the end of the furlough scheme to become clear. Data on the latter will not be available until November/ December 2021 and the Office for Budget Responsibility requires twelve weeks' notice to provide Budget forecasts. If the Autumn Budget is delayed, it will be for the third successive year. Rishi Sunak weighs up moving budget to 2022 on back of Covid crisis | Budget | The Guardian

Cross-border estate dispute

Pescatore v Valentino & Ors [2021] EWHC 1953 (Ch) is a complex cross-border probate dispute involving "forum-shopping". The deceased's widow applied for (and was granted) probate in England on the basis that the deceased was domiciled in England and Wales. The deceased's children (from his first marriage) commenced proceedings in Italy seeking to apply Italian law to the succession. The widow sought an interim anti-suit injunction to restrain the children continuing Italian proceedings until the English court had determined issues such as the applicable law and the domicile of the deceased. The application required consideration of the personal jurisdiction of the children and the natural forum for the dispute (inter alia). The anti-suit injunction was granted with the judge commenting that it was "forum-shopping" for the children (as British citizens and living in England) to resort to the courts of Italy and was an example of the children using Italian law as "a (metaphorical) stick to beat their stepmother with". Pescatore v Valentino & Ors [2021] EWHC 1953 (Ch) (15 July 2021) (

Co-ownership of land

Ralph v Ralph [2021] EWCA Civ 1106 is a case about a mistaken declaration of a tenancy in common on the TR1 property transfer form. The declaration was a tenancy in common in equal shares even though one of the parties had not contributed any funds to the purchase. The Court of Appeal held that the declaration could not be rectified as there was no evidence at the time of completion as to how the parties wanted the beneficial interest to be held: the parties "simply gave no thought to the matter at all." The case is a reminder for practitioners of the importance of discussions about how the property is to be held in equity. No rectification for common mistake where purchasers never considered how beneficial interest should be held (Court of Appeal) | Practical Law (

Remote court hearings

In June 2021, the President of the Family Division launched a rapid consultation on the use of remote hearings so as to inform the post-pandemic recovery plans of the family court and the Court of Protection. The findings have just been published and two-thirds of respondents believe that remote hearings are not yet adequately fair and efficient. There was support for remote "administrative" hearings (subject to certain caveats) but much less support for remote fact-finding hearings and final hearings. Many hearings are being conducted by telephone, instead of by video-conference, and in respect of the latter, there are concerns about the quality of connection and access to appropriate hardware. Remote hearings in the family court post pandemic (

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More