Search and find what you need faster.

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Daniel Baker Joins Lawrence Stephens‘ Sports and Entertainment Team

Posted on: November 3rd, 2025 by Ella Darnell

We’re pleased to announce that Daniel Baker has joined Lawrence Stephens as a Senior Associate in our Sports and Entertainment team.

Daniel joins us from Guildford-based law firm Moore Barlow where he was co-founder and co-head of their Sports Law group. He has developed a reputation for handling complex sports-related commercial dispute resolution, sporting governing body disciplinary and regulatory proceedings, advising in respect of employment / safeguarding issues and general commercial advice and support to clients within the sports sector both in the UK and overseas.

He is experienced in handling all types of sports litigation matters and has represented elite-level coaches, high-profile clubs and organisations in the sports sector. In acknowledgement of his expertise, he is recognised as a “Leading Associate” in the Sports Law category of the latest edition of the Legal 500 directory.

Mohit Pasricha, Head of the Sports and Entertainment team, commented: “We’re delighted that Daniel has agreed to join us. He has an excellent reputation, brings with him significant specialist knowledge and a wide network of relationships. His industry focused dispute resolution expertise helps deepen and widen our bench, enabling us to take on the more complex and challenging work for which we are becoming known”.    

For more information on the Sports and Entertainment team, please click here.

Building a Digital Economy: Matt Green’s Contribution to techUK’s Vision

Posted on: November 3rd, 2025 by Ella Darnell

Matt Green, Head of the Blockchain and Digital Assets sector at Lawrence Stephens and Chair of the techUK Digital Assets Group, has been instrumental in developing their “2030 Vision- A roadmap for Building a Digital Assets Economy”, which launched on 16 October.

Designed to share insights on current and anticipated use of distributed ledger technologies, the Vision 2030 draws on perspectives from across the Blockchain and Digital Assets ecosystem – from across Layer-1 chains, professional advisors, to financial houses, blockchain forensic software providers and beyond – identifying the opportunities that will help strengthen UK’s position as a global financial hub, a centre of innovation and a market where technology is used for good.

In recent years, regulators, policymakers, and governments have each mapped their digital ambitions. The UK Digital Strategy 2017 highlighted the economic benefits of digital skills, while the 2022 update focused on establishing the UK as a leading technology hub. More recently, the UK International Development’s Digital Development Strategy 2024–2030 signalled a broader digital transformation of society. This was reinforced in the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech earlier this year, which committed to “drive forward developments in blockchain technology… so that UK financial services can be at the forefront of digital asset innovation.”

The 2030 Vision brings together industry views on where we are today, where we are heading, and what is needed to ensure that by 2030 the UK is not just adapting to change – but leading it.

To read the report, please follow this link: https://www.techuk.org/resource/report-techuk-s-2030-vision-a-roadmap-for-building-a-digital-assets-economy.html.

You can read more about our Blockchain and Digital Assets services here.

Modernising Wills: Is This a New Era for Contentious Probate Practitioners in England and Wales?

Posted on: October 31st, 2025 by Ella Darnell

The Law Commission’s 2025 report, Modernising Wills Law, proposes transformative changes to the legal framework governing wills in England and Wales. For contentious probate practitioners, these reforms are more than theoretical – they could redefine how we approach disputes, especially in areas such as testamentary capacity and undue influence.

Whilst the Law Commission’s report sets out 31 recommendations, this article intends to comment on some of the key ones.

Testamentary Capacity: A Shift to the Mental Capacity Act 2005

One of the most significant recommendations is the replacement of the historic Banks v Goodfellow test with the more modern and widely applied test set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (“MCA”). It has been recommended that with the MCA Code of Practice, reference to and an explanation of the Banks v Goodfellow test should be included in the guidance on testamentary capacity.

This recommendation is likely to bring changes in everyday practice where practitioners are used to the current test so there will naturally be a period of adjustment and education required. This may however increase the number of disputes if there are inconsistencies with the way in which assessments of capacity are carried out.

Undue Influence: A More Accessible Route for Challenges

The evidential burden is notoriously high, often requiring proof of coercion that overtakes the testator’s free will, which is seen as an almost impossible standard once the testator has passed away. Currently the burden of proof is required to be discharged by the individual who is challenging the will. The proposed reforms aim to change this. Courts would be empowered to infer undue influence from the circumstantial evidence that raises reasonable suspicion, including amongst other matters: the conduct of the individual who is suspected of exerting undue influence, whether there was a relationship of influence between this individual and the testator, and the circumstances under which the will was made. The burden will also be placed on the persons upholding the will to prove it was made freely and consciously.

Children making wills

In England and Wales, the age at which an individual is eligible to make a will is 18 years old, the same age as testamentary capacity. It has been recommended that this age should be reduced to 16 years old and that the court also has the power to authorise a child that is under 16 to make a will. It has been recommended that the test set out in the MCA for testamentary capacity should be adopted.

Concerns were raised that children may be vulnerable to undue influence, but the committee generally were of the view that whilst this is a risk it alone should not prevent the recommendation that the age should be reduced to 16 to make a will.

Revocation by Marriage: Protecting against predatory unions

The proposed abolition of automatic will revocation upon marriage is designed to protect vulnerable individuals from “predatory marriages”. However, it introduces new risks. If a testator fails to update their will post-marriage, surviving spouses and civil partners may resort to claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”), especially in blended families or second marriages. The report highlighted that currently with the revocation of a will upon marriage or civil partnership, the intestacy rules would apply and as such favouring spouses and civil partners over other beneficiaries. With the current proposal, whilst spouses and civil partners are not automatically favoured under the intestacy rules, they remain protected by being within a class of those that can bring a claim under the 1975 Act.

Rectification of a will

Unfortunately, the courts are currently limited in their powers to correct mistakes such as drafting errors in a will. The report recommends that courts should be able to correct wills where there is clearly a failure to reflect what was intended by the testator.  

Electronic wills

It has been recommended that electronic wills should be permitted. This was considered in an earlier consultation in 2017 where it was provisionally concluded electronic wills should not be permitted. However, since then and owing significantly to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been more of an acceptance that electronic wills should be permitted. It also assists that there are significant advancements in technology over the recent years.

Formality requirements

The current law sets out certain requirements for a will to be valid. Unfortunately, however, with the strict rules regarding the signing of wills by testators and the requirements of witnesses, the recommendation is that even where all the formality requirements have not been fully met, the courts should still have the power to validate wills where the testator’s wishes are clear (in appropriate cases). This would ensure that wills are not deemed invalid due to a technical error which is the current position and estates having to be administered in accordance with intestacy rules.

Conclusion

These reforms signal a clear intent to provide the much-needed modernisation of private client law; this could be the biggest reform in over 150 years. The intention is to make will-making easier and most importantly to reflect modern life.

For contentious probate practitioners, this could mean potentially more probate disputes due to the lowering of thresholds and allowing for broader judicial discretion.

For more information on our Private Wealth and Succession Planning services, click here.

Can You Exclude an Adult Child From Your Will? Howe v Howe and the Inheritance Act 1975

Posted on: October 24th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

The case of Howe -v- Howe saw an adult child bring a claim pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“1975 Act”) against her late father’s estate.

Background

Mr Roger Howe (“the Deceased”), died on 27th March 2020, he had made a will dated 4th July 2017 in which he had entirely cut out his only daughter Jenna Howe. The Deceased had made clear the reasons for excluding his daughter, he described her as “lazy” “lying” and “useless”. Instead, he left his estate to his mother, sister and two nephews.

Miss Howe initially issued a claim to have the will set aside on the basis that the signature of one of the attesting witnesses had been forged. Unfortunately for Miss Howe, this claim failed due to the death of the witness and as such she withdrew her claim and it was ordered that she would pay towards the executor’s costs, the sum of £42,000.

Miss Howe then pursed a claim under the 1975 Act for reasonable financial provision for her maintenance as she had been excluded by her father from his will, she was claiming the sum of £450,000.

Miss Howe’s position was that it was owing to her father’s poor treatment of her when she was a child/teenager which is what directly contributed towards her health issues which made her unable to work and which now gave her the need to bring a claim under the 1975 Act for reasonable financial provision for her maintenance.

Judgement

The court found that despite the lengthy estrangement, that Miss Howe’s health needs were a significant factor for making a financial provision for her from the estate. Miss Howe’s health issues prevented her from working and were because of the treatment she received from the Deceased during her upbringing.

The court also ordered the estate to pay for Miss Howe’s white goods, car, income shortfall for 10 years, provision for her health needs which included therapy and new breast implants (she had claimed that they were essential to improve her confidence), and the costs order in respect of the initial claim Miss Howe brought to set aside the will.

In total Miss Howe was awarded £125,000 which was to be held on a discretionary trust so not to interfere with her entitlement to state benefits, it would also prevent her from spending the money unwisely.

Conclusion

There has clearly been a shift in the way in which courts are dealing with claims under the 1975 Act for reasonable financial provision from estranged adult children. This is certainly a landmark case which demonstrates what is a very complex balance that courts must find in being able to respect the wishes of the deceased but also ensuring that vulnerable claimants receive what would be considered an adequate financial provision. Whilst previously a claim by an estranged adult child may have appeared to be prima facie weak, this is clearly not the case.

This is yet another example of that when preparing your will, you need to take into consideration that adult children can successfully challenge your decision to exclude them entirely from your estate if they can provide a legitimate need.

For more information on our Private Wealth and Succession Planning services, click here.

Shaping the Future of Cannabis Regulation

Posted on: October 17th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

At this year’s Global Cannabis Regulatory Summit, Ricardo Geada, Director at Lawrence Stephens, played a central role as moderator of the high-profile panel “From Policy Idea to Program Implementation: Overcoming Legal, Financial, and Political Barriers to Unlock Global Cannabis Reform.”

Joined by leading voices in the sector, including Andy Cutbill (CEO, Cutbill Jacoby Communications), Sir Mike Penning (former UK MP and Minister of State), Shawn Hauser (Partner, Vicente LLP, USA), and Nick Morland (CEO, Tenacious Labs), Ricardo steered a focused and candid conversation on the structural barriers facing global cannabis reform.

Following the discussion, Ricardo and Andy collaborated on a white paper summarising the key insights. These takeaways highlight the urgent need for clarity, coordination and targeted reform.

  1. Legislative Lag: When Legalisation Falls Short
    Although medical cannabis has been legal in the UK since 2018, the reality is far from functional. Sir Mike Penning highlighted how patients, including children with severe epilepsy, are still struggling to access treatment on the NHS due to outdated regulation. One critical example is the failure to exempt government-issued licences from the ‘proceeds of crime’ provisions in POCA. This oversight puts compliant operators at risk of criminal penalties.

    In the US, state-level legalisation is undermined by federal prohibition. Despite guidance from FinCEN, banks are hesitant to serve cannabis businesses due to regulatory uncertainty, as Shawn Hauser explained. Nick Morland also pointed out that a simple legislative fix to POCA in the UK could unlock investment and operational growth.

    Ricardo identified that legalisation is not the end goal. Without practical legislative support, the industry will continue to stall.

  2. Interdepartmental Incoherence: A Fragmented System

The panel revealed a fundamental disconnect between UK government departments. While the Department of Health and Social Care regulates cannabis-based medicinal products, the Home Office and police still treat cannabis under legacy drug policies. This creates confusion and harm. For instance, some patients have had their prescribed medication confiscated or faced arrest.

Nick Morland summed up the issue neatly, stating that you only get “seven lines” to make your case to a policymaker. Clarity and alignment across departments is essential.

Ricardo and Andy concluded that true progress will only happen when government departments share the same goals, processes, and language.

  1. Missed Opportunity: Global Capital Blocked by Local Barriers

There is no shortage of capital ready to enter the cannabis market, but both UK and US systems present unnecessary obstacles. In the UK, banks have closed accounts for licensed cannabis businesses, fearing POCA penalties. This forces operators to run cash-only businesses, raising costs and reducing transparency.

Ricardo noted that other jurisdictions, such as Jersey, have introduced sensible exemptions that protect both compliance and access to finance. In the US, businesses face a federal tax rate of over 70%, while banking restrictions push many into the informal economy.

Rather than sweeping change, Ricardo argued that precise, well-targeted regulatory adjustments could have a powerful impact. Investment is ready, the system just needs to catch up.

  1. The Way Forward: Practical Recommendations
    The white paper also outlines a clear set of recommendations aimed at turning regulatory intent into commercial and public health reality. Highlights include:
  • Amending POCA in the UK to exempt government-issued licences from criminal liability.
  • Passing the SAFER Banking Act in the US to protect financial institutions that work with state-legal cannabis companies.
  • Developing standardised quality benchmarks for medical cannabis, drawing on the European Pharmacopoeia monograph.
  • Introducing harmonised compliance protocols and KYC checklists to help financial institutions confidently support the sector.
  • Creating a UK Medical Cannabis Fund to subsidise NHS prescriptions and collect clinical data on cannabis treatments.
  • Encouraging regulatory pilots that bring together banks, businesses and policymakers to trial compliance solutions in controlled environments.

    All recommendations are deliberately concise, designed to give policymakers the “seven-line” answers they need.

Conclusion: A New Framework for THC

As Ricardo concluded during the panel, the cannabis sector needs a new kind of THC—Transparency, Harmonisation and Collaboration. A genuine framework for progress.

The key message from Ricardo and Andy’s white paper is that the cannabis sector doesn’t need to wait for perfect reform. It needs practical, coordinated steps that unlock access, encourage innovation and attract investment. If regulators, financiers and the industry can work in sync, the cannabis market can finally deliver on its promise to patients, entrepreneurs and the wider economy.

For access to the full white paper or guidance on navigating the cannabis regulatory landscape, contact Ricardo.

Lawrence Stephens Ranked Band 1 in Chambers UK 2026 SME Guide

Posted on: October 16th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

Lawrence Stephens is proud to announce its ranking in Band 1 in Chambers UK 2026 SME-focused Firms category. This ranking illustrates our commitment to and excellence in the owner-managed business (OMB), founder-led and SME sector.

This recognition builds on our appearance in last year’s guide and is yet another milestone in the firm’s strategic focus in supporting fast-growth businesses and entrepreneurial clients.

Chambers describes us as being “deeply involved in the SME and entrepreneurial ecosystem”,  a reflection of the work we do every day. We advise clients across a broad range of sectors on incorporation, commercial contracts, commercial property, employment, funding rounds, and M&A transactions.

Jeff Rubenstein, Head of Corporate & Commercial, commented:

“This ranking is a fantastic endorsement of the work we do every day with ambitious SMEs and founders. It reflects our deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities in this space, and our commitment to delivering commercially astute, founder-friendly advice.”

Steven Bernstein, Managing Director, added:

“Being recognised in Band 1 by Chambers UK is not just a win for our firm but confirms our position as the go-to firm for SMEs and OMBs, and builds on our work with FEBE and FOUNDXRS Club to shape a bold, founder-first narrative for Lawrence Stephens.”

Our clients said:

“Lawrence Stephens have a very pragmatic and solutions-driven approach. They are great at keeping the client’s interests at heart and have the ability to distil and simplify complex matters.”

Supporting the SME community

Our SME-focused initiatives and partnerships are designed to empower founders, entrepreneurs, and owner-managed businesses at every stage of their journey:

  • Championing SME growth

    We are proud partners of FEBE, where we collaborate with some of the UK’s fastest-growing businesses to foster innovation and growth. We also regularly work with the Foundxrs Club, helping visionary founders turn bold ideas into thriving enterprises.

  • Tailored Resources for Entrepreneurs

    Our quarterly newsletter, The Fineprint, is crafted specifically for OMBs, founders, and entrepreneurs offering insights, legal updates, and practical guidance to help businesses stay ahead.

    We also created Flourish, our dedicated offering for start-ups, designed to support founders from day one through scale-up and eventual exit.

  • Trusted Legal Advisers to Leading SMEs

    We’re proud to advise a range of dynamic businesses, including:

    • Activate Group Limited, in its acquisition by Elysian Capital.
    • Ansor LLP, where we are the go-to firm for mid-market portfolio transactions, supporting their strategy of acquiring and combining profitable SMEs in high-growth sectors.
    • Genuine Dining, on its acquisition by WSH.
    • FMS Foils limited on its sale after we did the company formation over 25 years ago.
    • HFMC Wealth on various acquisitions.
    • M&A Coachworks, on its sale to The Steer Group.
    • Scutum Group UK in connection with the purchase of a number of alarm maintenance and monitoring SME businesses in the UK.

Whether you’re launching a start-up, scaling a growing business, or preparing for a strategic exit, Lawrence Stephens is here to help you navigate every step with confidence.

Learn more about how we can support entrepreneurial businesses here.

Lawrence Stephens Advises on Sale of FMS Foils Group to WZ Packaging

Posted on: October 15th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

We are proud to have advised on the sale of the entire issued share capital of FMS Foils Group Limited to WZ Packaging Limited, marking not just a successful transaction, but a significant milestone in a client relationship that has spanned more than 25 years.

FMS Foils Group has been a valued client of Lawrence Stephens since 1998, when Jeff Rubenstein, Head of Corporate and Commercial, first began advising the business shortly after joining the firm. Over the decades we’ve had the privilege of supporting the Group and its shareholders through every chapter of their journey, from formation and growth to this successful exit. This enduring partnership is a testament to the trust our clients place in us and the strength of the relationships we build.

The acquisition by WZ Packaging brings together two leaders in aluminium flexible packaging, positioning the combined group for continued innovation and global expansion.

Our Corporate and Commercial team provided end-to-end legal support throughout the transaction.

Jeff Rubenstein, Head of Corporate and Commercial, commented:

“It has been an honour and a privilege to work alongside and support FMS Foils Group for over 25 years. This transaction reflects the value of long-term client relationships and the importance of consistent, trusted legal guidance. I’m incredibly proud of the trust David and Paul have placed in us over the years, it’s been a true partnership.”

David Watson, FMS Foils Group, added:

“Jeff and the team at Lawrence Stephens have been with us since day one. Their advice has always been clear, commercial, and deeply supportive. We couldn’t have asked for better legal partners on this journey.”

Read more about our Corporate and Commercial services.

Lawrence Stephens Advises Maidenhead Aquatics on Acquisition of New Nottingham Store

Posted on: October 15th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

Lawrence Stephens has advised fishkeeping and aquatics supplier Maidenhead Aquatics on the acquisition of their new store at 66 Castle Boulevard, Nottingham. This strategic move marks a consolidation of the company’s presence in the city and reinforces its position as an industry leader. 

Founded in 1984, Maidenhead Aquatics has evolved into the UK’s premier destination for fishkeeping and aquatic supplies. With over 130 stores nationwide and a well-established online platform, the company is continuing to expand its footprint. With the acquisition of the new store in Nottingham, Maidenhead Aquatics is further strengthening its presence in the region and displaying their commitment to growth in the aquatics sector. 

Supervising Partner in the Commercial Real Estate team, Matt Hind added:

“We are delighted to have acted for Maidenhead Aquatics on this transaction.  From start to finish my colleague Mo has been instrumental in driving this deal for Maidenhead Aquatics. He has done a terrific job at delivering a successful result for the client and supporting them in their expansion.”

Solicitor Mohammad Hammoud commented:

“Maidenhead Aquatics now have a large new location where they can continue their excellent work and growth in the historic city of Nottingham. Their growth is a testament to their commitment to being the best in the aquatics business and I look forward to seeing them thrive in their new store.”

Sam Kent, a Partner at Maidenhead Aquatics commented:

“Working with Mohammad Hammoud at Lawrence Stephens to get this acquisition completed has been so efficient. Complex issues were dealt with, explained fully and communication was outstanding throughout. I wouldn’t hesitate to use Mo in the future.”

This deal was handled by Mohammad Hammoud and assisted by James Parker. To read more about the Commercial Real Estate team and their services, please click here.

Kaur -v- Estate of Karnail Singh & Others [2023] EWHC

Posted on: October 14th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

This was an interesting case which attracted a lot of media attention. Whilst it was not an unusual case, many called the actions of the deceased an injustice which required the court to put right.

Background

Mr Karnail Singh (the “Deceased”) died on 21st August 2021. He made a will dated 25th June 2005 in which he left his entire estate to two of his 6 surviving children, both were sons.

The Deceased made no provisions for his four daughters nor his wife. The Deceased’s intention was to leave his estate to the “male line” of his family.

The Deceased married his wife Harbans Kaur in 1955, a long marriage spanning 66 years, they had 7 children together although only six survived the Deceased.

The Deceased and his wife both worked in the family clothing business although she did not have a direct stake within it and nor did she receive a salary. She remained fully dependent on the Deceased, and he met all her financial needs throughout their long marriage.

Given that the Deceased left no provision in his will for his wife, she issued a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependant’s) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”), seeking an order that she should receive half of the estate, whatever the value may be. She made it clear that her intention was to be able to purchase a property for herself which was close to her daughter, and she was unable to do this given her only income was £12,000pa from state benefits and she had very modest assets.

Judgement

Mr Justice Peel found that the Deceased’s estate did not provide reasonable financial provision for the claimant and as such she was awarded 50% of the net value of the Deceased’s estate, she would also receive £20,000 forthwith on account of the final distribution due to her.

Further, the claimant’s costs were to be paid out of the gross value of the estate before any distribution was made to her, therefore her costs were treated as an administration expense.

Mr Justice Peel commented that:

“It is hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached. After a marriage of 66 years, to which she made a full and equal contribution, and during which all the assets accrued, she is left with next to nothing.”

It is worth noting that in this case there was discussion over what the value of the estate was. The claimant’s claim was 50% of the estate and this is what was awarded. The court did not specify exactly what the amount was as it was clear that even at the lower end of the values, it would still be sufficient to provide for the claimant.

Conclusion

The judgement did not necessarily come as surprise to many practitioners, however the key takeaway from this case must be that whilst testators do enjoy the freedom to leave their estate as they wish, the courts are looking at cases with the view to stand against injustice and equality.

Lawrence Stephens Advises HFMC Wealth on a Series of Strategic Acquisitions

Posted on: October 13th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

Lawrence Stephens advises top 100 UK IFA HFMC Wealth on a series of acquisitions as part of its ongoing consolidation strategy in the financial services sector. Our Corporate, Banking, and Property teams collaborated seamlessly to ensure smooth and efficient transactions.

The firm has completed a handful of key transactions for the  business over recent years:

The acquisition of R&S Financial Planning, a wealth planning business, adding £145 million to HFMC’s assets under advice.

The acquisition of Harford Financial Limited, a specialist mortgage brokerage.

The acquisition of Generic Financial Management, contributing an additional £150 million in assets under management.

The acquisition of Weston Cummins Limited, a wealth planning firm, adding a further £350 million in assets under advice.

These acquisitions significantly expand HFMC Wealth’s national footprint and reinforce its position as a leading independent financial adviser (IFA) in the UK.

We also advised HFMC Group in connection with a multi-million pound refinance of its existing loan facilities with Thincats Loans Limited to support their ongoing acquisition strategy.

Reflecting on the deals, Jeff Rubenstein, Head of Corporate and Commercial, expressed his pleasure in working with HFMC on these acquisitions. He commended the exceptional performance of our team and witnessing HFMC’s ongoing growth.

Phil Patient, Group COO of HFMC Wealth, commented:

“We are thrilled to continue a strong year of acquisitions for HFMC and to continue working with the crucial assistance of the team at Lawrence Stephens, who handled the transactions swiftly and with the utmost professionalism and attention to detail.”

These transactions reflect Lawrence Stephens’ continued commitment to supporting clients in the rapidly evolving financial services and IFA landscape.

Patel v Patel [2025], a reminder on how to avoid a dispute over funeral arrangements

Posted on: October 10th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

The case of Patel v Patel [2025] EWHC 560 (Ch) explores an issue which rarely tends to find its way before a Judge but one which is nonetheless an important issue to consider, this being what happens when executors cannot agree on funeral arrangements and who can make the final decision.

This case involved a dispute between the deceased’s son and daughter over the funeral arrangements for their late father. Both were been named as executors in the deceased’s will.

Background

The deceased was born in India but moved to England in 1954 with his wife. This is also where their children were born and raised. The deceased and his wife were devout Hindus.

The deceased’s wife died first, on 24th February 2024, and in accordance with Hindu traditions her body was cremated (she had clearly expressed in her will that she wished to be cremated), and her ashes were scattered in England.

The deceased died on 30th December 2024, he had made a will dated 22 December 1993 however his will did not provide any directions as to his funeral arrangements.  Following his death, the executors were at war, his son, the claimant in this case, maintained that his father had told him after his mother had died, that he wanted the same funeral arrangements as his wife, this being cremated and his ashes scattered in England. However, the deceased’s daughter, the defendant in this case, presented a different position to the court, she stated that her father had told her in the months leading up to his death that he wished to die in India and in the event where he died in England then he wanted his body to be taken to India and buried. 

The Law

HHJ Matthews stated that the law was clear in respect of the rights of a personal representative to the possession of the deceased’s body for the purposes of a funeral and referred to the case of  Buchanan v Milton [1999] 2 FLR 844,  where Hale J said:

“There is no right of ownership in a dead body. However, there is a duty at common law to arrange for its proper disposal. This duty falls primarily upon the personal representatives of the deceased (see Williams v Williams (1881) 20 Ch 659 ; Rees v Hughes [1946] KB 517). An executor appointed by will is entitled to obtain possession of the body for that purpose (see Sharp v Lush (1879) 10 Ch 468 at 472; Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority [1997] 1 WLR 596 at 600 obiter), even before there has been a grant of Probate. Where there is no executor that same duty falls upon the administrators of the estate, but they may not be able to obtain an injunction for delivery of the body before the grant of letters of administration (see Dobson).”

HHJ Matthews then had to consider the way in which the Court was able to intervene, and he looked at:

  1. 116 Senior Courts Act 1981 which provides that:

“(1) If by reason of any special circumstances it appears to the High Court to be necessary or expedient to appoint as administrator some person other than the person who but for this section would in accordance with probate rules have been entitled to the grant the court may in its discretion appoint as administrator such person as it thinks expedient.

(2)  Any grant of administration under this section may be limited in any way the court thinks fit”.

However, the claimant and the defendant had been both named as executors jointly and the decision to make in respect of the funeral agreements was one for them to make together but they were not able to agree.

  1. The courts inherent jurisdiction

HHJ Matthews considered the case of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Makin [2018] Ch 543  where Sir Geoffrey Vos, stated:

“80. In my judgment, the court does have an inherent jurisdiction to direct how the body of a deceased person should be disposed of. The court will normally, as I have said, be deciding between the competing wishes of different sets of relatives, and will only need to decide who should be responsible for disposal rather than what method of disposal should be employed. I cannot see, however, why the court’s inherent jurisdiction over estates is not sufficiently extensive to allow it, in a proper case, to give directions as to the method by which a deceased’s body should be disposed of. In my view, it is. Moreover, I am, for the reasons I have given in relation to section 116, prepared to exercise that jurisdiction in this case”.

HHJ Matthews relied on this authority to use the Courts Inherent jurisdiction to provide directions on the method of disposal of the deceased’s body.

Judgement

In his judgment, HHJ Matthews found that it had been difficult to determine the wishes of the deceased, and he found both the claimant and defendant to be reliable in their evidence. “[B]oth the claimant and the first defendant were telling the truth as they believed it to be, and neither was attempting to mislead the court”.

He noted that the family were all in agreement with the views of the claimant and it was only the defendant who had a different view, and this was based on the “perception of what the deceased wished for himself, and not on what she herself wishes for him.” It was the defendant’s case that she was not advocating her personal view on this.

In reaching a conclusion, HHJ Matthews considered a number of factors including the place where the deceased was most closely connected. He found this to be England as the deceased had lived here for 70 years (the majority of his life) with his wife, and it was where he raised his family. In comparison the deceased had not been back to India in over 20 years; and only extended family remained in India. Whilst England was not his place of birth it was his chosen home. Further, his wife’s ashes had been scatted in England.

He also considered the costs involved in transporting the deceased’s body to India would be significantly more, there would be the legal and administrative costs involved for the international transportation of human remains too. There would also be the costs for those family members who would have to travel to and from India.

In terms of timeframes, there had already been a period of three months since the deceased’s death where the body had remained undisposed of, to transport it to India would cause further delays.

HHJ Matthews when taking these various factors and the evidence into account, was of the view that the “right decision is to direct that the body of the deceased be cremated and his ashes scattered here in England, in accordance with the appropriate Hindu rites. In my judgment there is no sufficient justification for directing a burial in India on the facts of this case.”

He also added that he placed greater weight on the wishes of the wider family, he said that their needs were the “needs of the living”, they would be the ones that would be attending the funeral and the ones that would be grieving, and the funeral would give them both comfort and closure. He was of the view that the deceased’s views on his funeral arrangements were not legally enforceable but rather one of several factors which he was considering. The reason why it was not enforceable and only just a factor was because the deceased had not included directions in his will as to the disposal of his body.

Costs

HHJ Matthews was then asked to consider the issue of costs. Whilst costs are generally in the court’s discretion, it is common practice for the losing party to pay the winning parties costs, therefore the claimant sought an order the defendant should be ordered to pay his costs.

When considering this issue, it was HHJ Matthews view that the dispute was because of the deceased not expressly setting out in writing what his wishes were in relation to his funeral arrangements and had he done so he had no concern that the defendant would have acted in accordance with those wishes. It was on this basis that he ordered that the costs of the parties were payable from the estate.

Conclusion

This case is another helpful reminder that when you are preparing your will it is essential you set out clearly what your wishes are in respect of your funeral arrangements to avoid a situation such as this. This avoids further unnecessary anguish between the family members and could save the estate from incurring these legal costs.

HHJ highlighted that disputes such as these cause a great deal of sadness and prevent the family from moving on with their lives and coming to terms with their grief.

For more information on our Private Wealth and Succession Planning services, click here.

Senior Associate Ona Proctor Joins Lawrence Stephens’ Expanding Real Estate Finance Team

Posted on: October 10th, 2025 by Ella Darnell

We’re pleased to announce that Ona Proctor has joined Lawrence Stephens as a Senior Associate in our Real Estate Finance team.

Ona is a bilingual Korean real estate finance and commercial real estate lawyer with over 10 years’ experience advising Korean and international banks, asset managers, and institutional investors. Ona joins us, having previously worked at several international law firms, most recently gaining experience at Howard Kennedy LLP and Osborne Clarke LLP.

Her practice focuses on investment and secured lending across a wide range of asset types, including hotels, retail parks, care homes, and education facilities. Ona also has extensive experience managing cross-border transactions for Korean clients.

Ona’s appointment follows the recent hire of two new directors in the Real Estate Finance team, marking a significant time in the team’s expansion and strategic development.

Ann Ebberson, Director and Head of Real Estate Finance, commented:

“Ona’s arrival marks a significant step in the expansion of our Real Estate Finance team. Her technical ability, international experience, and deep sector knowledge will be invaluable to our clients and our growth.”

For more information on the Real Estate team and their services, click here.