Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related Content
CASE STUDY

“LexisNexis is great as I can find the answers I am looking for really quickly. I believe that nothing should be more than 6 clicks away - and the products from LexisNexis deliver on this standard”

Avensure

Access all documents on Issue (offspring)

Issue (offspring) meaning

What does Issue (offspring) mean?
In legal practice, “issue” (offspring) describes a person’s lineal descendants—children, grandchildren and remoter descendants of every degree. It excludes collateral relatives such as siblings, nephews or nieces. The term is widely used in wills, trusts and intestacy to identify who takes on a per stirpes/representation basis and to operate substitution or anti-lapse provisions. For intestacy, legislation defines the term: in England and Wales and Northern Ireland the Administration of Estates legislation treats “issue” as all lineal descendants; in Ireland the Succession Act 1965 defines “issue” similarly. Usage in Scotland is broadly consistent (often expressed as “issue” or “descendants”), with rights of representation applying on intestacy. Unless the instrument provides otherwise, modern statutes mean that: - Adopted children are issue of their adopters (and not of their birth parents). - Children are treated equally regardless of parents’ marital status. - Step-children are not issue unless adopted or expressly included. Parent–child status for assisted reproduction and surrogacy is determined by the relevant adoption and parentage legislation in each jurisdiction. The exact scope can be modified by express drafting (for example, by defining “issue” to include or exclude particular relationships), so construction depends on the language of the will or trust.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Issue (offspring)

NEWS
Marcus v Marcus: context-driven construction of 'children' in trusts includes non-biological child - High Court (England and Wales) modernises approach; drafting guidance for settlors and testators

Marcus v Marcus [2025] EWHC 1695 (Ch) What was the background? Stuart Marcus, a successful toy manufacturer, established a discretionary trust in 2003 for his ‘children and remoter issue’ and their spouses. At the time, he believed he had two biological children, Edward and Jonathan. Unbeknown to him, Edward may have been conceived during an affair Patricia, his wife, had within the marriage. The truth emerged in 2010 when Patricia told Edward that Stuart was not his biological father. That information was withheld from Stuart until his death in 2020, and Jonathan likewise remained unaware until he was told in 2023. After learning this, Jonathan commenced proceedings to exclude Edward from the trust, contending that he did not fall within the defined class of beneficiaries. In the first instance ruling (Marcus v Marcus [2025] 2 All ER 446; [2024] EWHC 2086 (Ch)), Master Marsh determined that Edward was not Stuart’s biological child. He further concluded that the word ‘children’ should be construed more widely than biological offspring alone so...

Read More Right Arrow