This quarter, our experts round up the latest developments across the sector. In this edition, we examine time limits for responding to claims in disputed wills and trusts, summarise new OPG guidance on gifts by attorneys, and explore how the 1975 Act can be used to vary a deceased’s estate.
We also consider two recent decisions: Natthachai v Burrage & Anor [2025] and O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch).
Our previous article in this series explored the types of claims that charities, executors and beneficiaries may face. This article focuses on the time limits for responding or defending those claims and why early legal advice is essential to protect rights, manage costs and ensure strict deadlines are not missed.
Read the article
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) published updated guidance on 25 February 2026 addressing the legal framework under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 governing when deputies and attorneys may give gifts on behalf of a person lacking capacity, and setting out the action it may take where such authority is exceeded. In this article, we provide a useful summary of the guidance.
Read the article
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows courts to vary a deceased’s estate to ensure reasonable financial provision for certain family members and dependants. This article explores the Act’s powers, their differing requirements and strategic uses, and the High Court’s decision in B v IB, clarifying their relationship.
Read the article
Disputes under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) are often emotionally charged and financially significant.
A recent High Court decision in the case of Natthachai v Burrage & Anor [2025] provides a clear reminder to parties, particularly those based overseas, that these claims are still subject to the Civil Procedure Rules and applications are most common in the commercial courts.
Read our analysis
The High Court’s decision in O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] provides a modern reminder that in 1975 Act litigation, image and timing can be just as important as substance. The claimant’s public persona, including a carefully curated social media presence, ultimately undermined his credibility, while his delay proved fatal to the claim.
In this article, we summarise the key findings from the case and explain the practical implications for practitioners.
Read our analysis
Kerry Morgan-Gould
Partner and Head of Trusts & Estates
+44 (0)1392 334154 k.morgan-gould@ashfords.co.uk View more
