Privileged will meaning

Under the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004) and its associated regulations, payments made by a registered pension scheme to, or on behalf of, a member or an employer are categorised as either: authorised payments unauthorised payments Any payment that is not an authorised payment will be treated as unauthorised, unless it falls within a statutory exception; moreover, certain types of payment are expressly identified as unauthorised. Unauthorised payments—consequences Subject to their own rules, registered pension schemes may make unauthorised payments Unauthorised payments typically trigger tax charges for both the recipient and the scheme, and can in the end result in de-registration, causing the loss of the scheme’s tax-privileged status Reporting obligations apply to schemes where unauthorised payments have occurred Benefits offered under registered pension schemes are generally designed to prevent unauthorised payments arising...

Abbot v The Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 478 (GRC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling mirrors the approach in other recent decisions on the operation of the exception to disclosure under EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, reg 12(5)(b), again stressing the considerable weight that legal professional privilege carries within our justice system. It therefore highlights the obstacles applicants will encounter when attempting to access documents protected by legal professional privilege, and that only ‘special or unusual’ circumstances are likely to be sufficient for the public interest in disclosure to prevail over the interest in preserving legal professional privilege. That said, legal professional privilege was not the Tribunal’s only concern when concluding that EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, reg 12(5)(b) applied. The Tribunal indicated that the exception would have been engaged even without legal professional privilege, particularly because releasing the material would not have added anything of substance to what is already in the public domain. As such, the analysis turned on whether disclosure would materially add...

Webb and another (in their capacity as joint liquidators of Eversholt Rail (365) Ltd (in liquidation)) v Eversholt Rail Ltd and another company [2024] EWHC 2217 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This case serves as a reminder to insolvency practitioners that orders under IA 1986, s 235 and IA 1986, s 236 are not automatic; a cogent justification is needed explaining why specified documents are reasonably required. Requests should be tightly focused in both timeframe and in the categories or classes of documents sought. The judge criticised not only the lack of specificity in the evidence, but also the failure to explain that lack. As the court has a broad discretion and will weigh a range of considerations, a request that is relatively unfocused may still be granted if there is a satisfactory reason it cannot be more precise, for example a complete lack of co-operation from the other side. What was the background? This application was made in relation to Eversholt...

In this issue: Cybersecurity Data protection LexTalk®Information Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Cybersecurity DSIT unveils Cyber Security and Resilience Bill policy statement and scope The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has outlined plans for the forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, due to reach Parliament in 2025. The proposals will oblige around 1,000 providers—spanning data centres, managed service operators and critical suppliers—to adhere to tougher cyber security obligations. The Bill also provides regulators with enhanced oversight powers and permits the Technology Secretary to adjust regulatory frameworks in line with emerging risks. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) managed 430 cyber incidents in the year to September 2024, 89 labelled nationally significant. The legislation seeks to counter threats that cost the UK economy an estimated £22bn each year between 2015 and 2019. See: LNB News 01/04/2025 22 and News Analysis: UK to single out cybersecurity vulnerabilities under new Bill. NCSC releases new principles...

This Practice Note considers the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and allied tools when preparing to give disclosure to opposing parties. It draws no distinction between disclosure under the disclosure scheme used in the Business and Property Courts and disclosure under Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The priority is to save time and costs without undermining the dependability of the disclosure produced. Why AI works in disclosure AI and related tools can be effective for disclosure because the task is often predictable. Similar kinds of disputes typically generate similar categories of documents tied to the particular issues in contention. Naturally, there will be variations from case to case, yet these do not diminish the role of AI tools. Such tools are attractive to legal advisers conducting disclosure as they reduce human effort and thus cost, while creating an audit trail to evidence the robustness of the process if the disclosure is challenged. The breadth of searches for responsive material is frequently scrutinised by opposing parties. In...

A lack of due execution A failure to ensure due execution is a recognised basis for contesting a Will. Under CPR 57.7(4), any party asserting that a Will was not duly executed must state that case specifically and supply particulars of the facts and matters relied upon. To be effective, Wills of those who died before 1 January 1964 had to comply with the execution requirements in the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837). For deaths on or after that date, the Wills Act 1963 (WA 1963) offers relief from the strictness of the earlier legislation. Amendments introduced by the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982) further extend limited relief to testators who make execution errors, but only where death occurs on or after 1 January 1983. As amended, the formalities now provide that a Will is not valid unless: it is in writing and signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and at their direction; and it appears that,...

This Practice Note summarises the principal legal updates relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at 2 March 2026, aimed at assisting current practice. For earlier developments, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI & clinical negligence developments Eighteenth edition of the Judicial College Guidelines due The 18th edition of the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG) will be released on 9 April 2026. The Lexis+® UK PI & Clinical Negligence team will refresh the JCG link within our Key Resources on the Lexis+® UK PI & Clinical Negligence homepage, together with all connected materials. Law Society publishes practice note on conduct of litigation following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys Following the High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the Law Society has issued guidance for solicitors, law firms and legal businesses to ensure that only individuals authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 undertake the conduct of litigation...

To: [ All staff in [ insert ] office ] From: Response Team Leader RE: Regulatory investigation—prompt attention required Privileged and confidential Dear All Investigators from [ insert ] [ are OR will be ] arriving on site beginning today to commence an investigation. [ Insert organisation name ] treats its legal duties seriously and will co-operate with the investigators, addressing their requests in line with [ our [ Dawn raid action plan ] ]. A ‘dawn raid’ is when representatives of a regulator attend our premises without prior notice to gather evidence for an investigation. Refusing to co-operate with the investigation, or impeding the investigators, will put [ insert organisation’s name ] and individuals at risk of sanctions. Further information is contained in our [ Dawn raid action plan ]...

This template memorandum should be read and, if suitable, sent together with the relevant template letter to your client regarding disclosure: Draft letter to client about disclosure—small claims track Draft letter to client about disclosure Confidential and privileged [ insert date ] [ insert addressees: [ insert addressees: senior managers/relevant employees and former employees/IT managers ] ] [ [ insert case heading ] OR [ description of the case if pre-action ] ] [ [ We ] OR [ the company ] ] may encounter a legal dispute in relation to [ insert matter/transaction subject of dispute ]. If the dispute is not brought to a conclusion, it is probable that we will be required to disclose relevant documents, including electronic records, that are or have been within [ [ our ] OR [ the company’s ] ] control, whether or not they support our case. That said, some relevant documents are protected from inspection (that is, actually seen)...

This Agreement is entered into on the [ date ] of [ month and year ] between: 1 [ Name of Party ] of [ address ] (“the Discloser”) and 2 [ Name of Party ] of [ address ] (“the Recipient”). Recitals The Discloser claims legal professional privilege over each and every one of the Documents identified in the Schedule to this Agreement, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall reduce, limit, or otherwise affect the continuing force of that claim. By virtue of [ briefly state the nature of the common interest (“the Common Interest”) ], the Discloser shares a common interest with the Recipient and seeks to advance the Common Interest pursuant to this Agreement, whilst not waiving its legal professional privilege in the Documents. The Recipient acknowledges that the Discloser asserts, and will continue to assert, legal professional privilege in the Documents, and the Recipient undertakes to support the Discloser by preserving the confidentiality of the Documents and by refraining...