Litigation friend meaning

This table provides an outline of the procedure where there is a probate claim For additional guidance, consult: Practice and procedure—contentious trusts and estates—overview, and Probate actions (probate claims)—overview. Issue of claim form (CPR): where the Claimant is a child or a protected party, comply with CPR Part 21 regarding the appointment of a litigation friend (CPR 21.1–21.6). The Claimant completes the claim form (Form N2), retaining one copy for filing and further copies for service on each Defendant (CPR 7.2, CPR 57.3). The claim form must set out the nature of the interest of the Claimant and of each Defendant in the deceased’s estate to which the claim relates (CPR 57.7(1)). Particulars of claim can appear within the claim form, or be served separately (CPR 7.4(1)(a)). For a claim seeking revocation of a grant: every person entitled, or asserting entitlement, to administer the deceased’s estate under any unrevoked grant of probate of the Will or letters of administration must be joined...

Testamentary capacity Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) – News Analysis: Will overturned for want of testamentary capacity and undue influence (Oliver v Oliver). This judgment is an uncommon instance of a successful attack on a professionally drafted Will for both incapacity and coercion, even where the court had a recording of the testator’s instructions and the GP had issued a supporting certificate. Despite those formalities, the court concluded the Will should be set aside on both grounds. Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP. Leonard v Leonard (by her litigation friend Sharon Thompsett) [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) – News Analysis: High Court offers guidance on the test for testamentary capacity (Leonard v Leonard). The High Court examines and clarifies Banks v Goodfellow, and underscores the continuing importance of expert evidence in capacity disputes. It underscores how clinical and legal evaluations interact closely, effectively. George Vare, barrister at Serle Court Chambers. Wilkinson v Hicken [2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch) – News Analysis: Personality disorders...

Sriram (acting by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and another [2024] EWHC 853 (Ch), [2024] All ER (D) 86 (Apr) What are the practical implications of this case? Creditors should act with care to ensure that service of a statutory demand (and bankruptcy petition) is properly effected, particularly where a debtor seeks to avoid service and has several addresses. Attempts to serve ought to be clearly and contemporaneously recorded. Creditors are required to take all reasonable measures to bring the document or documents to the debtor’s attention. However, this does not oblige them to attend or write to every address associated with the debtor that they know about. The addresses that must be tried will depend on the circumstances of the individual case. A wide, scattergun strategy to service is not expected. By way of example, if a debtor holds multiple properties and there is no reply to a visit or correspondence at one property, that location may not amount to a ‘known’...

In this issue: Trusts Court of Protection UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Insolvency—Private Client Charity and philanthropy Contentious trusts and estates Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis®PSL community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information Trusts Companies House publishes guidance on removal of overseas entities from register Companies House has issued guidance setting out the process for taking an overseas entity off the Register of Overseas Entities. It applies where the entity no longer holds registered title to UK land or property acquired on or after 1 January 1999 in England and Wales, 8 December 2014 in Scotland, and 5 September 2022 in Northern Ireland. The guidance confirms the entity must have disposed of all UK property or land, and the transfer of ownership...

JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43 In JXX (a protected party by his litigation friend ABB) v Archibald [2025] Lexis Citation 43, Costs Judge Rowley addressed a challenge where the defendant said the claimant’s Bill of Costs was defective because no expert fee notes were supplied and there were no separate itemisations for the medical agency’s charges and the experts’ own fees. The defendant invited the court either to strike out the Bill or to assess the expert fees at nil. Having examined the key points, the judge concluded that comparisons could be drawn with the often sparse detail on counsel’s fee notes, which still require judicial scrutiny. Mr Mallalieu submitted—and the court accepted—that further particulars can be demanded where necessary. However, on a standard basis assessment the evidential burden rests with the receiving party. If a terse invoice prompts the court to doubt whether a bare figure on a fee note is reasonable, it is the receiving party who...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

When guiding an older or at-risk person on any litigation matter, it is crucial to assess at the outset whether they possess the capacity to pursue and manage proceedings effectively. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), anyone who lacks the ability to conduct the case falls within the statutory definition of lacking capacity and, since 1 October 2007, is referred to as a 'protected party'. Where a claim is issued by, on behalf of, or against a protected party, no settlement, compromise, or payment, and no acceptance of money paid into court, is effective or valid, insofar as it concerns the claim by, on behalf of, or against that person, unless and until the court approves it. Principles of capacity under MCA 2005 Before turning to the specific rules and case law concerning capacity to litigate, it is helpful to note the relevant general principles of capacity under MCA 2005: MCA 2005, s 1(2) states that a person is to be...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

This TRUST is dated [ date ] Parties [ name ] of [ address ], represented by [ name ] of [ address ] (the Litigation Friend) [ name ] of [ address ] and [ name ] of [ address ] (the Original Trustees) Background The Trust is named [ insert name ] (the Trust). The Trust is created to accept the compensation payable for a personal injury to [ insert name ] (the Beneficiary), who lacks capacity to manage their property and financial affairs under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Following the personal injury, legal proceedings [ under Claim Number [ insert number ] ] were commenced and an order for payment of compensation was made on [ date to be completed once order is made ]...

Claimant: [ initial and surname ]; 1st: [ date ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [ OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [ location ] ] PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD) Claim No: [ x ] [ x ] and [ x ] [ x ] (a child by [ name ] his/her litigation friend) etc... WITNESS STATEMENT OF [ x ] I, [ name ], of [ address/workplace ], [ occupation ], [ WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS ]: I am the Claimant in these proceedings and the [ position under the trust ] of the trust dated [ xxx ], called the [ xxx Trust ] (the Trust)...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Chancery Division Property, Trusts and Probate List [ Claimant ] Claimant and [ Trustee ] [ Trustee ] [ Adult beneficiary ] [ Beneficiary ] (a child by [ name ] his/her litigation friend) etc… [ ultimate default beneficiary ] Defendants Details of Claim The Claimant[ s ] request[ s ]: An order under section 1 of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 approving, on behalf of the [ x ] Defendant and all [ unborn, ] [ unknown or unascertained ] persons who may later become beneficially entitled under the trust instrument dated [ x ] and called [ y ] (the Settlement), an arrangement varying the trusts in the form set out in the schedule to the draft order exhibited to the Claimant’s witness statement, or with such amendments as the Court may approve. Provision for the costs of this application. This claim is under the Variation of...

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) The MCA 2005 established a new assessment of mental capacity, which should generally serve as the primary point of reference when determining a person’s capacity. It consolidates the common law and does not explicitly overturn it...