Private Wealth Disputes 2026 Comparisons

The Chancery Division of the High Court is the principal venue for most complex, high-value and specialist private wealth disputes in the UK. This is the court for disputes regarding trusts, wills, the administration of estates, and claims for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. It also deals with disputes concerning ownership, corporate governance, shareholder conflicts (eg, unfair prejudice claims), and partnership disputes within businesses. Disputes over property co-ownership, land, and mortgage rights are also generally handled here.

The Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court deal with the division of private wealth upon divorce or separation, including disputes relating to complex structures, trusts, and family businesses. The Family Division of the High Court deals with complex, high-value, or international cases.

The Court of Protection is a standalone court with a highly specialised jurisdiction, dealing with Mental Capacity and Guardianship Disputes. It hears disputes regarding a person’s mental capacity and makes decisions about the personal welfare and financial affairs of individuals who lack the capacity to make those decisions for themselves. It handles applications to appoint “deputies” (which is the English term for a court-appointed guardian for property/finance or welfare), decides on the validity and effect of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs), and resolves disputes regarding the actions of deputies or attorneys.

Mediation and arbitration are both established and highly recommended options in the English legal system for handling private wealth disputes. The English Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which govern litigation, actively encourage parties to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and impose cost penalties on parties who unreasonably refuse to mediate or arbitrate.

Mediation

Mediation is the most common form of ADR in private wealth disputes.

A neutral third party (the mediator) helps the parties negotiate a settlement. The mediator does not give a binding decision; their role is to facilitate communication and explore options. Discussions and proposals made during mediation are strictly confidential and cannot be disclosed or used in any subsequent court proceedings.

• The court may order a stay of proceedings to allow for mediation, and judges will strongly encourage its use. Specialised forms exist, such as Private Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) in family law, where a highly experienced lawyer or retired judge provides a robust, non-binding opinion on the likely outcome at trial to encourage settlement. The Chancery Division also offers a similar service called Chancery Financial Dispute Resolution for Chancery claims.
• The process of mediation itself is non-binding. If the parties successfully reach an agreement, the terms are recorded in a written settlement agreement. This contract is then fully legally binding and enforceable in court, just like any other contract.

Arbitration

• Arbitration is less common for private wealth disputes, due to the need to secure the agreement of all parties. For the resolution of a trust dispute, the matter is unsettled as to whether an arbitration clause in a trust instrument alone can legally bind all beneficiaries, particularly those who are minor, unborn, or unascertained.
• The parties agree to submit their dispute to a private, expert arbitrator (or tribunal) who makes a final, binding Award. Unlike court proceedings, which are generally public, arbitration is confidential. Parties can select an arbitrator with specific expertise (eg, in complex trusts, family businesses, or international asset structuring).
• The court’s role is very limited, primarily to supporting the arbitration process (eg, granting interim injunctions or enforcing the Award) or hearing challenges to an Award on very narrow grounds, such as serious irregularity.
• A major advantage is that arbitral awards are often easier to enforce internationally than court judgments, due to the New York Convention.

The general rule in English civil litigation, including private wealth disputes, is that costs follow the event. This means the unsuccessful party generally pays a proportion of the successful party’s legal costs, in addition to their own. This proportion is typically 60-70% of the incurred costs, as the court only allows costs that were reasonably and proportionately incurred. The Court retains a discretion over costs (which includes penalties for unreasonable conduct, such as refusing Alternative Dispute Resolution or failing to comply with court rules).

The “costs follow the event” rule is a significant influence. It means that the parties must continually assess the merits of their case, as losing carries the high penalty of paying their opponent’s costs. It also encourages settlement. The risk of a significant adverse costs order at trial heavily incentivises parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution and accept reasonable settlement offers.

Trustees and Personal Representatives (Executors/Administrators) have a right to be indemnified for expenses, including legal fees, that were properly and reasonably incurred in the administration or defence of the estate or trust. This usually applies to legal fees for seeking court directions on a novel point, or for defending a claim where the trustee is remaining neutral. If a trustee or executor is found to have acted improperly, or loses a claim due to partisan behaviour or breach of trust, they will typically be personally liable for the costs.

Litigation in the English courts is highly favoured globally for complex, high-value, and cross-border private wealth disputes, due the stability and predictability of the country’s legal system and the high quality of its judiciary. The English courts (particularly the High Court) are renowned for their independence, procedural fairness, and the expertise of the specialist judges (eg, in the Chancery Division).

English conflict of law rules are well-developed and the availability of powerful discretionary remedies, such as worldwide freezing orders (injunctions to freeze assets globally), makes the English forum attractive for claimants pursuing assets abroad.

English court judgments are usually recognised in many common law jurisdictions, although it can be more challenging in civil law jurisdictions.

This combination of features leads wealthy individuals to often choose England as the forum, even when the dispute has only a tangential connection to the jurisdiction.

The public nature of English litigation might be unappealing to some litigants in private wealth disputes.

Disclosure (discovery) is available but is regulated. Disputes in the Chancery Division have moved away from automatic “Standard Disclosure” and the court instead selects a proportional option from a “menu” of disclosure models.

The English courts can grant powerful interim remedies, most notably disclosure orders, Worldwide Freezing Orders and proprietary injunctions, which can be critical for preventing the dissipation of assets in cross-border wealth disputes.

Cases where there are no material disputes of fact often proceed via a separate Part 8 Claim, which is faster than the standard Part 7 Claim procedure as it involves less or no reliance on factual witness evidence and disclosure.

Summary judgment and strike out applications can be made where a case lacks a real prospect of success. This can be an important tactical tool to expose the weaknesses in an opponent’s case at an early stage.

Disclosure in the Business and Property Courts, which include the Chancery Division, is governed by Practice Direction 57A of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The first stage is Initial Disclosure whereby each party is required to disclose documents on which it relies to support its claim or defence or that are necessary to understand the claim or defence. A party making Initial Disclosure is not obliged to conduct a search for documents beyond any search that it has conducted for the purposes of the proceedings.

If a party wishes to request further disclosure, then it may seek Extended Disclosure. The rules identify five possible models of such disclosure, Models A to E. These range from disclosure of known adverse documents only (Model A), to limited disclosure (Model B) to search-based models (Models C to E). If either party requests a search-based model, the parties must cooperate to produce a List of Issues for Disclosure using a prescribed form, the Disclosure Review Document. This requires the parties to consider which documents are necessary by reference to the issues in dispute and which model of disclosure would be appropriate. The document also provides the court with information about where and how data is held, who are the relevant custodians and how the parties propose to process and search data. The court will then order disclosure.

If there are concerns about the confidentiality of particular documents which have been ordered to be disclosed, the court may order disclosure to a limited group of people and has broad powers to impose appropriate restrictions. Similarly, a party may redact parts of a document on grounds of confidentiality, irrelevance or privilege with an explanation for such redactions.

Many private wealth disputes are resolved by a mode of claim, under CPR Part 8, which in general does not involve extensive discovery. This would apply where, for example, the question for the court is to determine the proper construction of a document or for directions. Here, the evidence on which a party relies should be “front-loaded” and disclosed on the commencement of proceedings. Further discovery may be ordered by the court if it considers it appropriate to do so.

Please see 2.1 Discovery.

Legal professional privilege is a rule of a substantive law and fundamental human right which entitles a party to withhold evidence from disclosure to the court or a third party. Once established, it is a right not to disclose (i) confidential communications between a lawyer and their client in relation to seeking or obtaining legal advice (legal advice privilege) and (ii) communications between a lawyer and the client or between either of them and a third party made for the dominant purpose of adversarial proceedings which are pending, reasonably contemplated or in existence (litigation privilege).

Without prejudice privilege is a rule of evidence. It means that communications, whether written or oral, made in the course of a genuine attempt to settle a dispute are not admissible in the proceedings concerning that dispute. The privilege applies to all genuine attempts to settle the dispute, whether or not they are specifically marked “without prejudice” or not.

Common interest privilege preserves legal professional privilege in communications disclosed to a third party who has a common interest in the subject matter of the communication or litigation connected to the shared document. Where it applies, the communication remains privileged in the hands of the third party. The situations in which a common interest arises are not entirely clear but include co-defendants, litigation funder and litigant and companies in the same group.

Joint privilege arises where two or more parties enter into a joint retainer with the same legal adviser or where separate parties have a joint interest in the subject matter of a privileged communication.

Privilege may be lost when confidentiality is lost, as confidentiality is a requirement of privilege. It may also be lost when it is waived either expressly or by implied consent.

When documents prepared for court such as statements of case, witness statements and documents referred in witness statements are served then any privilege in them has been waived.

It is possible for a document to be provided to a third party without waiving privilege. In that situation, waiver will depend on whether there was an express or implied restriction on the subsequent use of that document.

If a party chooses to waive privilege over a document or part of a document, he or she may be required to disclose other related documents or the full document in order to prevent the receiving party or the court from seeing only part of the picture and to prevent “cherry picking” among the privileged material. This is collateral waiver.

Where there has been inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document to a party, the court will determine whether the party to whom it has been disclosed may use it. If it was obvious that the disclosure was mistaken, then the court will prevent its use. In the Business and Property Courts, where a receiving party is told or suspects that a document has been disclosed inadvertently, they should not read it, and should inform the disclosing party. If the disclosing party confirms that the document was in fact disclosed inadvertently then the receiving party should either return or destroy it without reading it.

Legal professional privilege may be lost where a communication or document was created for the purpose of furthering a criminal or fraudulent purpose. This is known as the “fraud exception” or “iniquity principle”.

In the private wealth context, a trustee may wish to seek court approval for a momentous decision. Prior to taking that decision, the trustee may have had confidential communications with a beneficiary about that proposed decision. While those communications might not refer to a “dispute” in the ordinary sense, the courts are generally willing to treat those communications as caught by the “without prejudice” rule and, consequently, as inadmissible. That outcome, however, may conflict with the trustee’s obligation to disclose evidence to the court of the relevant considerations it took into account in formulating its decision.

English law upholds the principle of testamentary freedom. The grounds for invalidating a will are narrowly defined, and the burden of proof rests on the claimant (the person challenging the will).

• A common ground is lack of testamentary capacity. To succeed, the claimant must prove the testator did not understand the following at the time of making the will: the nature of a will, the extent of their property, the claims of those who should naturally benefit (or who they should consider), and that they were not suffering from a mental disorder that influenced the terms. Evidence typically involves contemporaneous medical records, reports from the deceased’s GP or specialists, and expert psychiatric evidence to provide a retrospective opinion on capacity.
• A related ground is that the will can be challenged for lack of knowledge and approval. This requiring evidence that the will was not read to or by or understood by the testator.
• Lack of due execution requires proving the will failed to comply with the strict formalities of the Wills Act 1837. The will must be signed by the testator (or someone on their behalf and in their presence), and the signature must be made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses who then both sign the will in the testator’s presence. Evidence is primarily testimony from the witnesses (or lack thereof) detailing the signing.
• Fraud/forgery requires proof of a forged signature or intentional deception. This demands a high standard of proof, typically involving forensic handwriting analysis or direct evidence of the deceit.
• Another ground which can be difficult to prove in practice is undue Influence. This involves proving that the will was made as a result of coercion or pressure that overcame the testator’s free will, not merely persuasion. There is no presumption of undue influence in wills (unlike in relation to certain lifetime gifts), so the claimant must prove via evidence that there was coercion or pressure to the requisite standard. Evidence is usually circumstantial, focusing on the testator’s vulnerability, isolation, and any sudden, unexplained changes in testamentary intentions, coupled with the coercer’s involvement in the will-making process.

Often the challenger first lodges a “caveat” at the Principal Registry of the Family Division. This is a simple administrative notice that prevents the deceased’s Personal Representatives (PRs) from obtaining the Grant of Probate (the legal authority to administer the estate).

If the PRs wish to proceed, they issue a warning to the caveator, requiring them to enter an appearance stating their interest in the estate and the grounds of the challenge.

Before issuing a claim, parties are expected to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Inheritance Disputes. This mandates that parties exchange detailed letters setting out the grounds of the claim and the evidence supporting it (eg, medical records). This step encourages early resolution and transparency.

If there is no pre-action resolution, the claimant issues a formal claim in the High Court (Chancery Division). The claim will usually be issued under Part 7 of the CPR, seeking a declaration that the purported will is invalid and often asking the court to pronounce for an earlier will (or intestacy). The proceedings involve standard litigation phases, including disclosure of relevant documents, exchange of witness statements, and, often, expert evidence (eg, medical or forensic reports), culminating in a trial.

English law recognises in terrorem or “no-contest” clauses, also known as forfeiture clauses, in wills. A no-contest clause is a condition attached to a gift that stipulates a beneficiary will forfeit their entitlement under the will if they take certain prohibited actions, such as commencing legal proceedings to set aside or contest the will. They are used by testators to deter beneficiaries from challenging the will’s validity or its provisions.

To be legally effective, the clause must contain a “gift over”. This means the will must explicitly state what happens to the forfeited benefit. It must pass to someone else (eg, fall into the residuary estate and go to other beneficiaries). If the clause is merely a threat with no consequence (ie, no specified gift over), the condition is generally held to be void and unenforceable.

The clause can act as a disincentive to litigation because it forces a beneficiary to weigh the potential value of a successful challenge against the certainty of losing their existing inheritance if the challenge fails. However, if the challenge is successful, the entire will (including the forfeiture clause) is invalidated, and the clause has no effect. This can increase the stakes for the challenger.

The clause can also be drafted to apply to claims made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. English courts have confirmed that such clauses are not void as being contrary to public policy, provided they do not attempt to oust the court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim. The claimant is still free to bring the claim, but in doing so, they risk forfeiting the provision already made for them.

The English legal system uses Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) as the primary legal tool to address capacity issues in advance, allowing an individual (the “donor”) to choose trusted people (the “attorneys”) to make decisions on their behalf if they lose mental capacity in the future.

There are two distinct types of LPA that cover different aspects of a person’s life, as follows.

• Property and Financial Affairs LPA: This allows the attorney to manage the donor’s money and property, including bank accounts, investments, benefits, and selling property. The donor can choose for this LPA to be used while they still have capacity (with their permission) or only once capacity is lost.
• Health and Welfare LPA: This covers decisions about the donor’s medical care, daily routine (eg, diet, dress), and living arrangements (eg, moving into a care home). This LPA only comes into effect once the donor lacks the capacity to make the relevant decision for themselves. The donor can also grant express authority for the attorney to make decisions about life-sustaining treatment.

An LPA must be executed and registered with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) while the donor has mental capacity. This ensures the donor’s autonomy is respected by allowing them to choose their decision-makers and set specific preferences or instructions while they are still able.

Once the donor lacks capacity, the attorney must always act in the donor’s best interests. They must also adhere to the following principles: they must assume capacity unless proven otherwise; they must help the donor make their own decisions where possible; they must not assume a lack of capacity simply because the person makes an unwise decision; and they must choose the least restrictive option possible.

If an LPA is not in place when a person loses capacity, a family member or friend must apply to the Court of Protection to be appointed as a Deputy. This is far more time-consuming and expensive, which the LPA can avoid.

The structuring of family wealth in the UK is usually informed by the desire to (i) minimise Inheritance Tax (IHT), and (ii) provide for the distribution of some wealth to the family, without the loss of full control by the matriarch/patriarch over the management of the assets. The two main structures used are trusts and family investment companies.

Trusts

Assets to be held on trust are provided by a “settlor”, either during their lifetime or after their death. A trust is not a legal entity – it is a relationship between trustees (who legally own the assets) and beneficiaries. Trustees have a duty to hold the trust assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

Trust disputes often arise when a beneficiary disagrees with the way trustees have managed assets. Assets may have been distributed to some beneficiaries and not others, or the trustees might have chosen not to distribute much, or any, of the assets for a period of time. Conflict might also arise between beneficiaries – particularly across various generations - where they feel their interests in the trust are not aligned.

The High Court has a supervisory jurisdiction over trusts but will rarely overrule a trustee’s exercise of a discretionary power. It will usually be resistant to claims by beneficiaries that it should step into the trustee’s shoes and make decisions for it. The Court will intervene where there has been a breach of the terms of the trust or fiduciary duties, or where a trustee has been “self-dealing” from the trust assets. In such cases, it may go so far as to remove trustees. The Court will also determine disputes in relation to the terms of the trust itself, such as whether the trust was created validly, or deciding whether someone is or is not a beneficiary.

Mediation is often the best way to resolve trust-related family disputes, as it provides a more private and less expensive format. These disputes are often highly emotionally charged, and in circumstances where the family and trustees may need to continue to work together following resolution, a more flexible and less adversarial process may be preferable.

Family Investment Companies (FICs)

• Unlike a trust, a FIC is a legal entity.
• FICs are usually designed to include and benefit family members, while allowing the matriarch or patriarch to maintain control (through constitutional documents governing shareholder classes and director powers).
• FICs will often be registered as “unlimited” companies, to keep accounting information more private.
• FIC directors must act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

Disputes within FICs often arise from poorly drafted constitutional documents, with some examples including:

• unclear rules regarding the rights and obligations of the classes of shareholders;
• a failure to properly set out succession plans;
• shareholders becoming unhappy with distribution policies, particularly where the FIC must deal with significant tax costs when distributing profits;
• the valuation of shares when a family member wishes to exit the structure; or
• how and when the FIC is to be wound up, which will usually involve addressing tax considerations and complex company law issues.

Since FICs are legal entities, a disgruntled family member might sue the FIC itself and/or the directors. As with trusts, mediation can be a particularly effective way to deal with disputes in FICs, providing a faster, cheaper, private and more flexible resolution to family disputes.

Family Limited Partnerships (FLPs)

FLPs allow a “General Partner”, usually the patriarch/matriarch or a company established by them, to retain full management over assets, while (usually) maintaining only a small economic interest. Other family members can be appointed “Limited Partners” and will receive most of the income and/or capital from the partnership, but have no management powers.

Limited partnerships are governed by the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. As with FICs, the majority of disputes arising in relation to FLPs relate to poor drafting of the partnership documents. In particular, issues are often caused by a lack of clarity on how succession to the General Partner role is managed, and rights to income and capital.  As with the other structures mentioned, disputes can be dealt with in the courts, but mediation is often a preferable option.

Trusts are widely used to shield assets against creditor claims. To be effective for this purpose, the trust should be both discretionary and irrevocable, ie:

• the trustees are empowered to make decisions about what and when beneficiaries receive benefit from the trust – there is no fixed entitlement; and 
• the settlor cannot unwind the trust once it has been created.

These conditions are the best way to protect trust assets from claims against either the settlor (who no longer owns them) or the beneficiaries (who have no fixed or definite asset until it is distributed to them).

Assets in trust will not be effectively protected if:

• the transfer into trust was intended to defraud/defeat/prejudice creditors of the settlor, whether the settlor was insolvent at the time or not; a trust settled shortly prior to a major claim being made against the settlor is likely to be set aside on the basis that it was a transfer with wrongful intent; or
• the trust reserves too much control to the settlor, such that it is a sham.

Unlike other jurisdictions, foundations are not a feature of the English legal system.

The Family Court in England is well known for its discretionary approach, which is intended to achieve “fair outcomes” for parties through a focus on the substance of wealth rather than the formal structures around it. This means that, practically, no structure is “divorce-proof” in England. 

Pre- and Post-Nuptial Agreements

Where the parties have prenuptial and/or postnuptial agreements, these will be considered by a Court as part of a divorce (insofar as the Court is satisfied they were made freely and with full understanding), but such agreements are subject to the Court’s ultimate discretion to make a decision it considers fair. The interests of any children will also be relevant.

Nuptial Trusts

A divorcing spouse might attack a “nuptial trust”, being a settlement created before or during the marriage, which makes or made provision for one or both of the spouses. This might commonly be a trust that holds the family home. The court has broad and flexible powers to vary nuptial trusts, including by adding/removing beneficiaries, having assets transferred out of the trust, or providing rights of occupation to a trust asset such as a home.

FICs and FLPs

FICs and FLPs are also vulnerable to attack. The Family Court might order a director of a FIC or a partner of a FLP to liquidate or restructure their holdings in those entities as part of an overall settlement order.

Creditor claims are generally defended in two ways: (i) disputing that the creditor is owed the debt, and/or (ii) defending assets (or former assets) against being used to satisfy the debt. A debtor will also be anxious to have their lawyer prevent a bankruptcy order.

A debt might be contested on the basis:

• the debt is not owed (perhaps because it is owed by an entity with its own legal personality, rather than the individual);
• the creditor has miscalculated the debt;
• the claim is outside the limitation period;
• the creditor owes the debtor a sum equal to or greater than the debt owed to the creditor; or
• the debt is a result of an unenforceable or invalid personal guarantee.

Where the debt is established, a debtor may wish to protect certain assets from being used to satisfy it. Where an asset has been transferred out of the debtor’s ownership, the debtor might be required to prove this was not done fraudulently or for the purpose of defeating the creditor’s claim to it – otherwise the transfer may be reversed.

A charging order against property might be resisted on the basis that it will cause undue hardship to the individual or family, or that it will unfairly prejudice other creditors (ie, the mortgage provider).

Bankruptcy orders might be avoided by proposing an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) to repay the debt over a fixed period. IVAs are only available where creditors agree to the proposal, but are a powerful way to avoid bankruptcy and may allow an individual to keep important assets.

As explained above, trustees in England owe legal duties to beneficiaries of the trust. Beneficiaries are empowered to bring claims against trustees where they have breached their duties. Common examples of these claims are:

• conflicts of interest and/or self-dealing;
• the trustee is or has profited from their position without the informed consent of the beneficiaries;
• the trustee has not acted with appropriate care and skill;
• the trustee has failed to provide information;
• the trustee has not acted impartially as between beneficiaries; and
• misappropriation of trust assets.

Trust proceedings are usually brought in the High Court and governed by the Civil Procedure Rules. Pre-action protocols should be followed (including sending a letter explaining the beneficiary’s position and giving the trustee time to respond).

Ordinary claims in contract/tort may arise from a trustee’s acts on behalf of the trust. Examples include:

• where there is a contract between the trustee (in their capacity as a trustee) and a third party for goods or services, a claim might be brought against the trustee for breach of that contract; and
• where a third party has a tortious claim against the trust – ie for negligence in the use of trust property – that party may bring the action against the trustee personally.

Trustees may be entitled to be reimbursed from the trust fund for these kinds of claims.

Creditors of a beneficiary may, in certain circumstances, seek to obtain a charging order against a trust asset or income, where a beneficiary has a fixed right to that asset or income. This is not possible where the benefit is discretionary.

The concept of “piercing the veil” relates to entities that have a separate legal personality, most commonly a company. Under English law, a trust is not a formal entity and therefore no “veil” of legal personality exists between the trustees and the rest of the world. When a trustee acts, even in their capacity as a trustee, they are doing so personally. Trustees can therefore be personally liable for debts and obligations that they thereby incur. The main form of protection available to a trustee is indemnification from the trust assets to cover such costs where they are incurred as a result of the proper exercise of their powers. 

Trust deeds commonly exonerate trustees for loss or damage to the trust fund, so long as they acted honestly and in good faith. However, it is not possible for a trustee to contract out of damage they cause by actual fraud or dishonesty. A court might also relieve a trustee of personal liability if it is fair to do so, even where the deed contains no such clause.

Trustees are entitled to delegate certain roles within the trust to professionals, so long as those professionals are appointed properly and are appropriately supervised. Investment managers are a common example. In such circumstances, the professional (and not the trustee) will be liable for errors or breaches of duties made by that professional.

The English legal system does not have forced heirship laws and is fundamentally governed by the principle of testamentary freedom. This means an individual is free to dispose of their estate as they wish via a valid will, with no obligation to reserve a fixed share for children or other relatives.

However, a statutory variation does exist under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (The 1975 Act). The 1975 Act allows a specific, defined class of claimants to apply to the court for “reasonable financial provision” from the deceased’s net estate, if the will or intestacy rules failed to provide it. This is not a fixed statutory share (like a forced heirship quota), but a discretionary court remedy based on need and other factors.

Eligible claimants include the surviving spouse or civil partner, a former spouse/civil partner, a cohabitant, a child of the deceased (of any age), and any person who was being maintained by the deceased.

The needs of spouses and civil partners are judged on a higher standard: what is reasonable for their maintenance in all the circumstances, often assessed by reference to what they might have received had the marriage ended in divorce rather than death (the starting point generally being 50%). This can significantly exceed their mere need for subsistence.

All other claimants (children, dependents, etc) are judged purely on what is required for their maintenance (support for living expenses) in all the circumstances.

The vast majority of disputes arising under the 1975 Act, or other inheritance challenges, are settled through consensual arrangements. Beneficiaries can execute a Deed of Variation within two years of death to legally redirect their inherited shares to another person, often the claimant.

If a 1975 Act claim is made, the parties frequently resolve it via ADR and document the agreed terms in a settlement agreement.

Please see 7.1 Forced Heirship Rules. There are no forced heirship disputes. Claims for reasonable financial provision may be brought under the 1975 Act, generally under the Part 8 procedure. The claimant must file all written evidence with the court at the outset, usually in the form of a witness statement. The claim must state which part of the 1975 Act is being used and the specific remedy sought. The claim must be filed within six months of a grant of probate or letters of administration being issued, although the court has discretion to allow claims made out of time.

Please see 7.2 Succession Disputes. England does not have forced heirship laws. As for relocating assets to England to avoid foreign forced heirship laws, this can be complex. English law generally adopts the following conflict of law rules regarding succession.

• Immovable Property (Land/Real Estate): Succession is governed by the law of the place where the property is located (lex situs).
• Movable Property (Money, Shares, Investments): Succession is governed by the law of the deceased person’s domicile at the date of death (lex domicilii). Relocating movable assets alone is not enough; the deceased must also successfully change their domicile to a non-forced heirship jurisdiction (like England). This requires proving a genuine and permanent intention to live in the new country indefinitely.

In December 2025, the Government published its UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025. Among its aims is to target professional enablers of corruption, money laundering and breaches of sanctions. Earlier this year, the Government also transferred the supervision of anti-money laundering and the control of terrorist financing by lawyers, accountants, trust companies and company service providers to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

From 6 April 2026, tax advisers will need to self-certify by registering with HMRC that minimum standards are met. The objective is to enhance HMRC’s ability to monitor the conduct and competency of tax advisers.

Civil tax enforcement is handled by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). HMRC has information-gathering powers which include issuing a written notice to provide information or documents and extends to third parties including financial institutions. It may conduct compliance checks, for example into a self-assessment tax return or an employer compliance review. It may also open an enquiry. If it suspects that tax has not been paid or has been underpaid, then it may issue a discovery assessment.

HMRC has specific powers in relation to fraud. Under its Code of Practice 9, if HMRC suspects that a person may be guilty of tax fraud or evasion, it may give the suspect an opportunity to make a disclosure which sets out the background and circumstances of any non-compliance and to settle outstanding tax. HMRC agrees, in return, not to open a criminal investigation. HMRC deals with suspected tax fraud by way of the Code of Practice 9 process wherever it considers it appropriate to do, so and reserves criminal investigation and prosecution for the most serious cases or where it wishes to send a deterrent message. HMRC openly publishes regularly updated lists of deliberate defaulters in such cases.

Those involved in the private wealth industry are policed by the same enforcement authorities and agencies as the general population. There is no specific enforcement agency which targets “gatekeepers”. However, agencies have demonstrated an increased interest in the those involved in private wealth, in particular, as it engages sanctions law. For example, HMRC has issued guidance targeting money laundering in the art market; the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has expanded its definition of firms subject to sanctions reporting to include art dealers; and the UK’s Economic Crime Plan for 2023 to 2026 has prioritised “professional enablers” defined as “an individual or organisation that is providing professional services that enables criminality. Their behaviour is deliberate, reckless, improper, dishonest and/or negligent through a failure to meet their professional and regulatory obligations”.

There is some evidence that agencies are taking action to prosecute professional enablers. For example, HMRC has recently charged an art gallery breaching sanctions legislation and an art dealer was successfully prosecuted for failing to report the sale of works to a sanctioned individual.

Under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, the Government introduced a new offence of “failure to prevent fraud”. Here, a large organisation will be liable where a specified fraud offence is committed by an employee or agent of a firm where the organisation did not have reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place.

A private criminal prosecution is brought by a private individual or body other than a statutory prosecuting authority. The right to bring a private prosecution is preserved by section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Private prosecutions have become an important part of enforcing the criminal law in circumstances where criminal conduct has become more complex and enforcement agencies are overstretched.

The right to bring a private prosecution is limited, in certain circumstances, by the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to take over conduct of the prosecution and the requirement that a private prosecutor must obtain consent of the DPP, the Attorney General or a relevant government official.

A private prosecution is commenced when the prosecutor provides the details of the alleged offence to the Magistrates’ Court. If the Court is satisfied that the basic ingredients of the offence may be present, that there are no other formal defects with the information and the allegation is not vexatious, it will issue a summons or arrest warrant. A summons, which will set out when and where the defendant is required to attend court, will be served by the prosecutor with the assistance of the police, if necessary.

In order to commence a prosecution, a private prosecutor will necessarily have some information about the alleged criminal offence. However, he or she may need to investigate further, including by taking witness statements, employing private investigators (specialist law firms sometimes employ former government investigators for this purpose), issuing witness summonses or seeking disclosure in parallel civil proceedings.

There is no duty on the private prosecutor to inform the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that he or she has started a criminal prosecution. The CPS may become aware of it when the prosecutor or defendant invites the CPS to take over the prosecution or where extradition is requested. When the CPS receives such a request, the CPS should request all of the information and evidence from the private prosecutor.

The CPS will take over the conduct of a private prosecution if the evidence discloses a reasonable prospect of conviction (ie, more likely than not), the prosecution is in the public interest and there is a particular need for the CPS to take over the prosecution. The last condition may arise where, for example, the offence is serious, there are detailed disclosure issues involved or extradition is necessary. If the CPS considers that the prosecution does disclose a reasonable prospect of conviction, then they will take over the prosecution and discontinue the case.

English courts will not enforce the tax laws of another state absent a treaty or convention, as it considers such enforcement to be an exercise of national sovereignty. However, the UK has entered into and implemented several conventions and treaties for the sharing of information and mutual assistance in relation to tax matters, including the US/UK FATCA (requiring the disclosure of financial information of US citizens living in the UK) and the Common Reporting Standard. Many double tax treaties also require the exchange of information between the tax authorities of contracting states.

The English legal system does allow reformation proceedings, although the terminology differs.

The general jurisdiction for these matters is the High Court, Chancery Division.

Rectification of Wills

For wills, the process is formally known as rectification. The court has a statutory power to correct a will only in very specific, limited circumstances after the testator’s death. Rectification is only available if the court is satisfied that the will fails to carry out the testator’s intentions because of one of two types of mistake, as follows.

• Clerical Error: This is an inadvertent error made in the process of recording or transcribing the intended words (eg, a simple typing error, a misplaced clause, or accidentally signing the wrong mirror will). The definition is broad, covering “office work of a relatively routine nature”.
• Failure to Understand Instructions: This is an error by the solicitor or will draftsman who prepared the will but failed to understand the testator’s instructions, resulting in a will that does not accurately reflect those intentions.

An application for rectification must be made to the court, typically within six months of the Grant of Probate being issued. The applicant must provide clear, compelling evidence proving:

• the testator’s true instructions (usually letters, file notes, or previous draft wills);
• the existence of the clerical error or the failure to understand those instructions; and
• the specific wording needed to correct the will to reflect the testator’s true intentions.

2. Rescission/Rectification of Trust Instruments

For lifetime (inter vivos) trusts, the grounds for correction are broader than for wills.

• Rectification: Similar to wills, the court can rectify a trust deed if there is clear evidence that the written document failed to reflect the true intentions of the settlor due to a mechanical or drafting error.
• Rescission (Setting Aside for Mistake): A decision can be set aside (rescinded) if the settlor or trustee was acting under a serious mistake of fact or law. This is often used where the settlor or trustee did not appreciate the consequences of what they signed. A decision can be declared voidable if: (i) there was a mistake that was the reason why the decision or transaction was made (the “but for” test); (ii) the mistake was of sufficient gravity to make it “unconscionable or unjust” for the legal consequences of the transaction to stand; or (iii) the mistake relates to the legal effect of the transaction or a fact/law basic to the transaction.

The English legal system provides distinct equitable remedies that allow trustees and other fiduciaries to “undo” exercises of discretion that result in unintended, often adverse, consequences (eg, unexpected tax charges). The two primary concepts are the rule in Pitt v Holt (the correct formulation of the former Hastings-Bass rule) and the separate equitable jurisdiction to rescind for mistake (see 9.1 Reformation Proceedings).

The Rule in Pitt v Holt

The original, widely applied “Rule in Re Hastings-Bass” was significantly redefined by the Supreme Court in the joint appeals of Pitt v Holt; Futter v Futter (2013). The court clarified that the principle is not a standalone rule but an aspect of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over trustees’ duties.

An exercise of a fiduciary power (such as a power of appointment or advancement by a trustee) can be rendered voidable (meaning it can be set aside by the court) only if two strict conditions are met, as follows.

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The fiduciary (trustee, etc) must have failed to exercise their discretion properly, which amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty. This usually involves a failure to take into account a relevant consideration or taking into account an irrelevant consideration.
• Causation: The breach of duty must be the cause of the impugned decision.

Crucially, the Supreme Court ruled that a trustee who acts on apparently competent professional advice (even if that advice turns out to be wrong, for example, on tax law) is not usually in breach of their fiduciary duty. In such cases, the decision cannot be set aside under Pitt v Holt; the proper remedy is a professional negligence claim against the adviser. This severely curtailed the previous, broader application of the Hastings-Bass rule, which had often been used simply to correct unexpected tax outcomes.

Recession for Equitable Mistake

Rescission for equitable mistake is a more flexible remedy available to a trustee, settlor, or fiduciary to set aside a transaction that was entered into under a fundamental mistake (see above).

The UK enjoys a culturally and ethnically diverse population. As with many other jurisdictions, that diversity can sometimes inform private wealth disputes. For example, the general approach of the English courts is for private wealth disputes (and disputes generally) to be heard in public. In contrast with most offshore dispute resolution centres, there are very few circumstances in which the English courts will allow disputes to be heard privately. Where particular communities prefer, for cultural or religious reasons, for example, their disputes to be heard in private, they may choose mediation or arbitration. Those involved in these more private forms of dispute resolution, whether as counsel, mediator or arbitrator, are increasingly required to understand the cultural, ethnic and religious background of the participants, as they may well inform the issues in dispute.

We are in the middle of a very significant transfer of wealth to Gen X, Gen Z and millennials. The different priorities, goals and needs of these generations have caused a significant increase in the number and type of private wealth disputes. It is often the case that families are not willing to transfer significant wealth to younger generations, favouring support for business ventures and family set-up rather than long-term dependence on the wealth. In contrast, younger generations may want to be informed and involved in the management and distribution of wealth, which can cause disputes about asset management and allocation. They may not want to be involved in the running of the “family business”, which can cause disputes about how assets derived from that business should be fairly allocated between siblings or other family members, whether on the passing of the settlor or wealth creator or on an ongoing basis. They may also be more mobile than their parents’ generation, and some or all of them may want to travel abroad for education, work or family reasons. This can cause friction where they wish to move to jurisdictions with more onerous tax regimes.

Separately, and in part as a result of increased life expectancy and an ageing population, together with advances in medicine and science, an increasing number of disputes are being seen where a lack of capacity or ill-health is used to challenge decisions made by settlors, testators or office-holders. Advisors are frequently required to ensure that decision makers are capable of and have the requisite consent to make and implement decisions.