Oakwood Solicitors Ltd v Menzies [2024] UKSC 34

Katie SpencerLeave a comment

Case overview

The case of Oakwood Solicitors Ltd v Menzies [2024] UKSC 34 explores a client’s right to request an assessment of legal fees, focusing on the interpretation of “payment” in Section 70(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of the client, reinforcing protections that allow clients to review and negotiate billed costs.

Initial Proceedings

The Respondent, Oakwood Solicitors, were instructed by the Appellant, Menzies, following his involvement in a Road Traffic Accident, under a Conditional Fee Agreement.

The claim settled for £275,000, after which the Respondent issued a ‘Final Statute Bill’ outlining the fees incurred throughout the case, totalling £73,711.20. The Respondent deducted from the damages an amount to cover the shortfall in costs after deducting costs recovered from the Defendant, as agreed in the CFA.

On 1 April 2021, the Appellant initiated proceedings to request an assessment of the final bill. To determine whether the Appellant could bring these proceedings, the Costs Judge assessed the date on which payment of the bill was made. The Costs Judge decided that payment had occurred over 12 months before the assessment (apparently taking the date as being when the Final Statute Bill was delivered).

Legal Issue

Section 70(4) of the 1974 Solicitors Act states:

‘The power to order assessment conferred by subsection (2) shall not be exercisable on an application made by the party chargeable with the bill after the expiration of 12 months from the payment of the bill.’

Applying this rule, as the payment of the bill occurred over 12 months prior to the assessment application, the Appellant was barred from seeking an assessment.

Appeal to the High Court

The Appellant appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal on the grounds that there had been “no sufficient settlement of account” to warrant treating the deduction as payment under Section 70(4).

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

The Respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which found that, because the Appellant had agreed in the CFA to the deduction of monies and had been sent a Final Statute Bill no further agreement on the bill amount was necessary. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

The Appellant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning

Lord Hamblen delivered judgment on the matter, considering several key points to reach a conclusion. Section 70 was concerned with the right to assess solicitors’ bills of costs with a focus on the proper amount to be charged, having regard to whether costs have been reasonably incurred and are reasonable in amount.  The client needed an opportunity to consider the bill and decide to what extent it should be paid. Section 70 envisages payment after the delivery of the bill and rather than by delivery of the bill.

 

The right to have the bill assessed is intended to protect the client’s interests, which are compromised if the client is not given the opportunity to consider the bill of costs.  Consideration of the meaning of ‘payment’ in Section 70(4) and previous authorities supported the Appellant’s case.

In considering the requirement for a settlement of account, the cases of Re Bignold (1845) and Harrion v Tew (1987) were referenced, both of which were found to support the Appellant’s position that an agreement to the bill is necessary. Lord Hamblen said, “the authorities show a long established understanding as to what payment by deduction or retention requires…both generally and with specific reference to section 70…The need for a settlement of account has been consistently stated…This requires an agreement to the sum taken or to be taken by way of payment of the bill of costs.” Therefore, there needed to be agreement as to the amount to be paid in respect of the bill of costs and mere delivery of the bill was not sufficient.

 

Lord Hamblen felt that the Respondent’s submissions as to practical implications of this conclusion were overstated, in any event these could not dictate the correct interpretation of ‘payment’ in the legislation, and the need for agreement by way of a settlement of account was long established.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed which restored Bourne J’s order for assessment.

 

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Getting it Right – CPR 2.8 and calculating dates for service

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

Calculation of Time

The recent case of Corfield v Howard [2024] EWHC 2727 (Comm) is a reminder of the importance of calculating time for service and filing of Court documents.

In the above matter, the Defendant applied for declaratory relief as to the meaning of enforcement of a settlement agreement scheduled to a Tomlin order. In accordance with a consent order, skeleton arguments were due to be served and filed one clear day before the hearing. The Court staff noted that no skeleton arguments had been filed and served by the due date. Their time was therefore taken up identifying the breach and writing chasing letters to the parties’ representatives. Both parties subsequently filed their skeleton arguments. HHJ Judge Davis-White KC sated that he did not need to enquire further as to where the fault lay, however, he said that Counsel and instructing solicitors should liaise in good time to ensure that the required skeleton argument can be prepared by Counsel by the required time.

The Judge went on further to state that:

“the delivery of skeleton arguments in accordance with guidance of court order is essential for the efficient running of the courts”. Although the Judge was able to proceed with the hearing on this occasion, the Judge did warn that “the court is likely to impose sanctions in cases as egregious as these”.

Although there were no sanctions in this case, it serves as a timely reminder that compliance with court imposed deadlines is mandatory and, in an appropriate case, the Court may impose sanctions for a failure to comply. Getting it wrong can be costly, and, in the extreme, fatal to the case.

The Rules

CPR Part 6 is at the heart of the rules relating to service of documents, and Practice Direction 6A relates to service within the United Kingdom.

CPR 2.8 sets out how we go about calculating time, and parts 2.8 (2) and (3) specifically explains the clear day rule which often catches practitioners out:

“(2) A period of time expressed as a number of days shall be computed as clear days.

(3) In this rule ‘clear days’ means that in computing the number of days –

(a) the day on which the period begins; and

(b) if the end of the period is defined by reference to an event, the day on which that event occurs are not included.”

CPR 2.8 (4) continues to explain that:

“Where the specified period –

(a) is 5 days or less; and

(b) includes –

(i) a Saturday or Sunday; or

(ii) a Bank Holiday, Christmas Day or Good Friday,

that day does not count”

Examples

Where a CMC is listed for 28 March and the Court orders bundles to be filed no later than 7 days before the CMC, the last date for filing is 20 March.

Alternatively, where a witness statement must be served 5 days before a hearing listed on Tuesday 18 March, the deadline for service is Monday 10 March.

Interestingly, CPR 44 practice direction 9.5 (4) provides different rules for the filing and service of a statement of costs before a fast-track trial and other hearings;

“The statement of costs must be filed at court and copies of it must be served on any party against whom an order for payment of those costs is intended to be sought as soon as possible and in any event –

(a) for a fast track trial, not less than 2 days before the trial; and

(b) for all other hearings, not less than 24 hours before the time fixed for the hearing.

Where a fast track trial is listed for 1.30pm on the first Tuesday after Easter, taking into account the clear day rule and CPR 2.8 (4), the statement of costs must be filed and served no later than the Tuesday before. Wednesday and Thursday provide the 2 clear days, with Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Sunday and Monday not counting. Therefore, in this instance, 7 days before the hearing – suddenly the 2 days turn into 7 days.

However, if it were an interim application hearing listed for 1.30pm on the first Tuesday after Easter, the statement of costs must be filed and served no later than 1.30pm on Maundy Thursday.  What is crucial here is that this rule provides for hours and not clear days. Therefore, filing and serving at 1pm on Maundy Thursday would be perfectly acceptable despite it being within no clear days of the hearing. The clear day rule does not apply when the rules specify the deadline as a number of hours rather than a number of days.

Conclusion

Being aware of this subtle difference could prove to be a very useful tool for any practitioners who are under time constraints for the filing and service of Court documents. A note of advice –  if in doubt then check the rules. The rules regarding filing and service can easily catch you out, particularly bearing in mind that there are also rules surrounding the method of filing and service, i.e. service by email, fax etc., in addition to those relating to timing.

Joanne Chase is a Legal Director in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

The Precedent U Document: A Practical Guide

angelanakoLeave a comment

The Fixed Costs Determination process (FCD) was implemented on 1 October 2024 and with this new procedure the Precedent U was also introduced. The Precedent U is the first formal document, implemented for use specifically in the fixed costs regime.

For an overview of the FCD procedure, please see our comprehensive overview of the same. Below is a guide on how the form looks and what information is required to complete it.

Section A

This first section outlines the case details and the receiving party is also required to set out the track, band and value of the claim. The receiving party is also required to complete the relevant fixed costs calculations, and outline disbursements and court fees that they are seeking to recover.

It is at this stage that the receiving party should also indicate whether they are seeking costs pursuant to CPR 45.9, CPR 45.10, or CPR 45.50 (3) and / or CPR 45.13. The provisions deal with increased costs based on exceptional circumstances, vulnerability, and unreasonable conduct as well as assessment of fees on non-issued personal injury cases.

For the information provided within Section A to be valid, a statement of truth must also be signed by the receiving party to verify the costs which are being sought.

Section B

This section has three columns.

The first column is completed by the receiving party and outlines the sum of the fixed costs claimed, disbursements and court fees claimed and an explanation in support of those fees.

The second column provides the paying party the opportunity to respond to the receiving party’s claim, with the chance to make an offer for each item and outline an explanation as to why the original sums are not agreed.

The third column is completed by the Court if the parties are unable to reach agreement and the matter is determined by them.

Section B also requires a signature by the paying party.

Section C

Section C requires the receiving party to outline the basis of their claim for additional sums and provides the receiving party the opportunity to respond.

As touched on above, this section only requires completion when costs are sought pursuant to CPR 45.9, 45.10, 45.50(3) and/or 45.13. Therefore, Section C will only be used when claims are made for costs exceeding fixed recoverable costs where there are exceptional circumstances, unreasonable conduct and/or there is a vulnerable party or witness. It will also be used in the context of stage S1 costs, in non-personal injury claims where the costs are subject to a cap as opposed to being fixed.

When claiming costs under any of the conditions exhibited above, a separate N260 must be completed and submitted.

The form is limited in size and it may also be the case that a witness statement and supporting evidence is prepared and advanced when this section is completed.

 

Angela is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Costs Budgeting Light Update

Anna LockyerLeave a comment

As discussed at the CPRC meeting last month, two draft costs budgeting pilots have now been prepared in respect of:

  1. Business and Property Court (BPC) cases; and
  2. Certain other cases valued at under £1m.

A new Precedent costs form (modelled on the existing Precedent H) has been drafted and approved in principle.

Each pilot maintains the exclusions set out in CPR 3.12 (claims of £10m or more and claims brought by children).

The draft BPC Practice Direction provides for where the court does not make a CMO and allows court discretion, incorporating “unless the court orders otherwise” in the interests of clarity.

The BPC Pilot is intended to cover BPC of England and Wales (i.e. the Rolls Building) and at least two BPC District Registries (including Business and Property work in the county courts in those District Registries).

The non-BPC under £1m pilot mirrors the BPC under £1m position.

Various implementation issues, including the pilot courts, numbering of the Precedent and Practice Direction, and the commencement and duration of the pilots are yet to be finalised.

MA v A Local Authority & Ors [2024] EWCOP 48 (T2)

hawamayetLeave a comment

This matter concerned a legal Judgment following an appeal by MA, a Protected Party, against decision by District Judge Simpson. The original decision determined that it was in the best interests of MA and her husband, AA, both of whom have Dementia and lack capacity to make decisions about their residence, care, and contact with others, to have no form of contact with each other.

The couple, married for over 60 years, are placed in separate care facilities due to their differing care needs and are deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The appeal was opposed by AA and the public bodies responsible for their care.

The appeal raised eight grounds, focusing on the weight given to the past and present wishes and feelings of MA and AA, their mutual beliefs and values, and the benefits and burdens of potential contact or relocation. The Appellant argued that the Judge failed to adequately consider these factors, particularly the lifelong values and beliefs associated with their marriage. The appeal also challenged the Judge’s analysis under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to respect for private and family life.

The Court granted permission to appeal on the first seven grounds, acknowledging arguable issues with the balancing exercise of the Judge’s decision. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed on all grounds.

The Judgment emphasized that the Trial Judge’s decision was thorough and based on the overwhelming evidence presented, which indicated that contact between MA and AA was not in their best interests due to the distress it caused, the Court found that the decision was proportionate and necessary, with provisions for regular review as the conditions of both parties evolve. The Judgment also addressed procedural aspects, such as the consolidation of separate applications and the refusal of permission to appeal on the eighth ground related to Article 8 rights.

The Court upheld the original decision, affirming that the separation and lack of contact were lawful and in the best interests of both parties, with ongoing reviews to accommodate any changes in their conditions.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

CD, Re (Treatment: Haemodialysis) [2024]

maidiedeightonLeave a comment

Application for declarations that it was not in CD’s best interests to have new haemodialysis catheter fitted and that he should instead receive palliative care.

CD is a 66 year old originally from Bangladesh and has end-stage renal disease and other conditions. Problems arose with his catheter and attempts to insert a long-term tunnelled catheter were unsuccessful due to his agitation, leading him to repeatedly try to pull it out. While there was consensus that the temporary catheter needed to be removed, the NHS Trust proposed that CD should receive palliative care instead.

Professional evidence indicated that without dialysis, CD might have only two weeks to live, but with treatment, he could potentially survive for an additional three to six months.

However, Judge Poole ultimately rejected this proposal. He recognized the complexities of the situation but emphasized the importance of preserving life.

He states at [29] “The presumption that steps should be taken to preserve life, the family’s views, evidence as to CD’s beliefs and values and his past wishes and feelings, and the evidence of the pleasures that he still derives from interactions with his family and others and from good food, weigh in favour of his undergoing the procedure and continuing with dialysis. I am cautious about finding that it is in his best interests to undergo a procedure the purpose of which he might unknowingly frustrate by pulling out a catheter, but without the insertion of a catheter his life cannot be preserved, and his life, if preserved, will continue to bring him real benefits alongside its burdens. There is no advanced decision to consider but the evidence is that CD is a man who, if he still had capacity, would not want his life to end prematurely unless its burdens became wholly overwhelming.”

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com

The BBC v Cardiff Council & Ors (2024): the Media versus the Rights of Vulnerable Individuals

Lydia MarshallLeave a comment

Understanding the Judgment: The BBC v Cardiff Council & Ors [2024] EWCOP 50

  • In recent weeks, the legal community has been abuzz with the implications of the judgment in The BBC v Cardiff Council & Ors [2024] EWCOP 50. This case, adjudicated in the Court of Protection, has helped to inform how public interest journalism interacts with privacy rights, particularly regarding individuals who lack the capacity to make decisions about their own welfare. Here, we’ll review the key aspects of the judgment and its initial impact.

Background of the Case

  • The case arose from the BBC’s intent to publish information about a vulnerable adult under the care of Cardiff Council. This individual had a history of mental issues, prompting concerns over their right to privacy versus the public’s right to know about issues of public interest. The BBC sought to report on matters affecting the individual, looking at the importance of transparency in public services.

The Court’s Findings

  • The Court of Protection primarily deals with issues related to individuals who lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. In this case, the court had to weigh the individual’s right to confidentiality against the BBC’s freedom of speech.

Key Legal Considerations

  1. Public Interest vs. Privacy Rights: The judgment agreed the principle that while public interest is crucial, it should not outweigh the privacy rights of vulnerable individuals. The court emphasized the importance of considering all perspectives when evaluating these competing rights.
  2. Journalistic Integrity: The BBC argued why reporting on the practices of public bodies was necessary. The court recognized the role of the media in promoting positive change but could not ignore the importance of safeguards required to protect the vulnerable.

Implications of the Judgment

For Journalists and Media Organizations

  • This judgment sets a precedent for how journalists must approach cases involving vulnerable individuals. It emphasizes the need for care in considering ethical implications and the potential impact on the lives of those affected. Media outlets must balance their reporting obligations with sensitivity towards the individuals involved.

For Public Bodies

  • Cardiff Council and similar organizations must review their practices regarding capacity assessments and handling information related to vulnerable individuals. This judgment is a reminder of their responsibility to protect the rights of individuals under their care while also ensuring transparency.

For Legal Practitioners

  • Legal professionals working in media law and mental capacity will find this judgment particularly insightful. It reinforces the importance of understanding privacy rights, capacity, and public interest, guiding future cases in similar domains.

Conclusion

  • The ruling in The BBC v Cardiff Council & Ors serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in the rights of individuals versus the demands of public interest journalism. This case will likely inform future discussions and legal frameworks surrounding capacity, privacy, and the role of the media. It’s clear that these principles will continue to resonate throughout both legal and media industries for years to come.

Was it correct to act against expressly made, documented wishes in attempts to preserve life? The case of Pindo Mulla v Spain (2024).

Stephanie KayeLeave a comment

The case of Pindo Mulla v Spain (2024) involved a decision made by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to conducting medical treatment for Pindo Mulla (PM). PM was a Jehovah’s Witness who had expressly confirmed that she could not accept blood transfusions due to the moral stance outlined with her religious beliefs.

 

PM had been aware of her condition prior to the required surgery and drew up several documents refusing any type of blood transfusion if it was deemed by medical professionals that she required the same. In 2018, she required further emergency surgery at La Paz Hospital in Madrid, at which point medical professionals sought permission from a judge to transfuse her if necessary, whilst being aware that she had “verbally expressed her rejection of all types of treatment”. Permission was given “to treat the patient arriving from Soria, whose identity is unknown for the moment, with the medical or surgical measures necessary to safeguard her life and physical integrity”, and as a result PM was transfused during the procedure. She then attempted to sue in domestic Courts in Spain, but was unsuccessful in her action.

PM proceeded to argue that her objection to the transfusions had been overridden in contravention of Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

Conclusion:

The Court found that the decision to proceed with the medical treatment, against PM’s wishes, had occurred due to a decision-making process affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of these wishes. The Court was satisfied that the actions of the medical professionals had been motivated by an overriding concern to ensure that Pindo Mulla was treated effectively, but that overall it was evident that her rights under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention had in fact been violated, and that the domestic system had not responded appropriately to PM’s complaints regarding the overruling of her documented wishes.

 

ACC & Others – A Useful Recap

Leah MorrisLeave a comment

Introduction

The case of ACC & Others [2020] EWCOP 9 was a landmark judgment by HHJ Hilder in the Court of Protection that clarifies the authority required by Deputies to obtain legal services and the management of conflicts of interest.

This judgment arose from three separate proceedings involving Deputies connected to the law firm Irwin Mitchell. In two of these cases, the Deputy was the Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation and in the third case the Deputy was a partner in the firm. Notably, the Deputyship Orders did not explicitly grant or deny authority to instruct solicitors or initiate legal actions, leading to questions about litigation costs and potential conflicts of interest in a Deputy connected to Irwin Mitchell appointing Irwin Mitchell to act in litigation.

‘General Authority’

HHJ Hilder sets out the background to the three sets of proceedings, the position of the parties and the relevant law, explaining that the Orders appointing the Deputies contained a general authority and that these proceedings had arisen “…because the Court had concerns about what the Applicants regard as a reasonable interpretation of ‘general’ authority.”  The three cases “demonstrate a clear need for further amplification of the Court’s approach” but the learned Judge approached that task cautiously, stating that “‘General’ authority is not susceptible to exhaustive definition.”

In order to amplify the Court’s approach, HHJ Hilder asked a series of questions in relation to authorisation required to conduct litigation on behalf of P, further proceedings in the Court of Protection, to what extent ‘general authority’ encompassed authority to take legal advice on behalf of P, the line between seeking advice and conducting litigation, urgent matters, the addressing of conflicts of interest, cases where the Deputy is not the instructing party, acting as litigation friend and where P has capacity to give instructions for the work in question.

The Conclusions of HHJ Hilder

HHJ Hilder’s conclusions on these questions are set out in an Appendix to the Judgment and are stated below.

  1.  The “general” authority to manage property and affairs which is granted by the standard Deputyship order encompasses those common or ordinary tasks which are required to administer P’s estate efficiently.
  2. Authority to make a decision / do an act in respect of P’s property and affairs encompasses such ordinary non-contentious legal tasks, including obtaining legal advice, as are ancillary to giving effect to that authority.
  3. In particular:

a) authority to purchase or sell property includes conveyancing

b) authority to let property includes dealing with leases or tenancy agreements

c) authority to conduct P’s business includes dealing with employment contracts of that business

d) “general” authority encompasses:

i) the preparation of an annual tax return, and therefore obtaining advice as to completion of the return

ii) discharging P’s financial responsibilities under a tenancy, and therefore obtaining advice as to liabilities under the tenancy.

iii) applying P’s funds so as to ensure that the costs of his care arrangements are met, and therefore dealing with employment contracts of directly employed carers

What does this mean for Deputies in practical terms?

As alluded to above, general authority for the management of property and financial affairs will usually encompass tasks such as conveyancing, managing leases, business and associated employment contracts, preparing tax returns (excluding complex returns), taking advice on any tenancy issues, arranging care and where authority encompasses steps in contemplation of contentious litigation, which includes obtaining Counsel’s opinion.

The Court Order appointing the Deputy will specifically state the authorities allowed for the most part. Where work looks to fall outside of the general authority, specific further authority may be required.

Outside the general authority of property and financial affairs Deputies, specific authority is required to conduct litigation. Deputies can take advice on ‘contentious litigation’ on a matter but only up to receiving a letter of response and no further. This has been further clarified to include non-contentious work too including conveyancing work. Specific authority is also required to make payment to a third party and includes any costs incurred by a member of the Protected Party’s family. A property and affairs Deputy also has no authority to make decisions in relation to a health and welfare matter.

Additional authority from the Court should be sought where litigation is required for continuing healthcare appeals, education appeals and appeals against health and care plans, as these fall outside the scope of the general authority. Authority is also required from the Court of Protection to let property including taking steps to form a view as to whether there are grounds to evict a tenant.

For prospective Deputies they should consider whether there is a need to instruct somebody else to provide legal advice at the time they apply to be appointed. Three quotes should be provided including one from their own firm, if desired, then the Deputy should make a best interest decision as to which provider meets the needs of the Protected Party.

For existing Deputies, there is a continuing expectation to consider the limits of their own specific authority and to address any conflicts of interest. Where costs are likely to exceed £2,000, authorisation is required and as for prospective Deputies three quotes should also be obtained. The quotes should be included within the annual Deputyship report, providing justification as to why the chosen firm was instructed. Both monetary and non-monetary significance to the Protected Party will be relevant. If the Deputy wishes for the work to remain in-house and the quote is over £2,000, an Order will be required from the Court.

Conclusion

Overall, this case has had significant implications for the governance of Deputyships, contributing to the amended Deputyship Standards published by the Office of the Public Guardian on 13 February 2023. The principles established in this judgment aim to safeguard the interests of vulnerable individuals and provide clearer guidelines for Deputies in their legal and financial responsibilities.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

Gifting – New guidance issued by the Office of the Public Guardian

Tanya ForanLeave a comment

The Office of the Public Guardian have this month issued updated guidance on gifting for both Deputies and Attorneys on behalf of P.

Both Deputies and Attorneys must follow stricter protocols when giving gifts on behalf of P. The gifts must coincide with past habits and financial means and need to comply with the MCA 2005. Approval must be sought from the Court of Protection when making gifts, with the exception of small customary amounts such as for birthdays, holidays and other similar events.

It is necessary to ensure that when making gifts, the Deputy or Attorney are acting in P’s best interests given their wishes, feelings and financial position. Also, a sufficient paper trail should be kept to explain how the decision was arrived at and what factors were taken into account.

The Deputy or Attorney must consider whether P has:

  • The capacity to understand the decision to make a gift;
  • Whether P is able to take part in the decision making process.

What cannot be given as a gift:

  • A loan
  • Making a large gift
  • Creating a trust over P’s property
  • Living rent free in a property owned by P
  • Selling a property for less than its value or transferring property into another name
  • Changing a Will by a deed of variation
  • Maintaining and support another person
  • Removing cash assets to reduce P’s estate

Exceptions include gifts given to friends and family on customary occasions such as birthdays, weddings and religious celebrations, gifts that were previously given either to a person or charity and must be of reasonable value, taking into account the circumstances and the size of P’s estate.

What is deemed as a reasonable gift?

Various factors must be taken into account including:

  • The impact of the gift on P’s estate;
    • Whether making the gift is in P’s best interests; and
    • The current and future needs of P.

A best interests decision should be made and properly recorded including details of all other issues taken into account. These include P’s previous habits, how the gift may affect an inheritance and the payment of inheritance tax. P’s life expectancy should be considered together with P’s future financial position and the relationship between P and the person receiving the gift also, importantly P’s wishes and feelings, taking into account any previous Wills prepared.

For the full guidance please click on the link giving-gifts-guidance.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

If you have any questions on the information above or have any general queries with regard to seeking costs, please contact me at Tanya.Foran@clarionsolicitors.com.