FAQs

Yes, we have a London office. Our address is 84 Brook St, London W1K 5EH.

Yes, our Manchester office can be found at the Bass Warehouse, 4 Castle St, Manchester M3 4LZ, just four minutes away from Deansgate-Castlefield train station.

Yes, our Altrincham office is based at 20 Market Street, WA14 1PF. For a full, no-obligation consultation by telephone, video conference, or by visiting the office, ring 0161 507 7145 or email us at [email protected].

We don’t have a permanent office in Wilmslow, but our nearest location is just a 9-minute drive away in Alderley Edge:

McAlister Family Law
4 West Street
Alderley Edge
Cheshire
SK9 7EG

You can book a free consultation at our Stockport office, by phone or email.
Contact us today:

0333 202 6433
[email protected]

Yes. We have a local office at:

McAlister Family Law
176 London Road
Hazel Grove
Stockport
SK7 4DJ

This office is just 10 minutes from Stockport’s Family Law Courts, making it an ideal location for in-person support.

We don’t have a physical office in Macclesfield, but our Alderley Edge office is the closest location and easily accessible from Macclesfield.

You can find our closest office at:

McAlister Family Law
4 West Street
Alderley Edge
Cheshire
SK9 7EG

We operate across Greater Manchester, including Didsbury, but do not have a physical office there.

Our nearest office is located at:

McAlister Family Law
Bass Warehouse
4 Castle Street
Manchester
M3 4LZ

Yes, our Cheshire office is based at 4 West Street in Alderley Edge. Visit our office to arrange a full, no-obligation consultation by telephone or video conference. Contact us at 0333 202 6433 or email [email protected]. 

While we don’t have a physical office in Tarporley, our Alderley Edge office is ideally located for clients in the area. We provide a private and welcoming space to meet with our experienced legal team and discuss your needs in confidence.

You can find our Alderley Edge office at:

McAlister Family Law
4 West Street
Alderley Edge
Cheshire
SK9 7EG

Our Alderley Edge office is ideally located for clients based in Sale, providing a confidential and welcoming space to meet with our knowledgeable legal professionals.

You can find our Alderley Edge office at:

4 West Street,

Alderley Edge

Cheshire

SK9 7EG

0161 507 7138

We do not have a dedicated Nantwich office, but our Alderley Edge office is conveniently located for clients in Nantwich and the surrounding areas.

We offer a discreet and professional environment to discuss your legal matters with our expert team.

Our Alderley Edge office is located at:

McAlister Family Law
4 West Street
Alderley Edge
Cheshire
SK9 7EG

Our Alderley Edge office is the nearest location to Knutsford, offering a discreet and convenient suburban setting to meet with our experienced legal team.

You can find our Alderley Edge office at:

4 West Street,

Alderley Edge

Cheshire

SK9 7EG

0161 507 7138

Our Alderley Edge office is our closest location to Cheadle Hulme, providing a discreet suburban location to meet with our expert legal team. 

You can find our Alderley Edge office at:

4 West Street,

Alderley Edge

Cheshire

SK9 7EG

0161 507 7138

When getting divorced it is often necessary to get specialist valuation reports for properties, art, antiques, yachts etc. We regularly obtain such reports and have contacts around the world that can assist with this. Specialist tax advice is also often needed from different countries regarding the sale or transfer of assets and how different countries deal with the taxation of the payment and receipt of spousal and child maintenance. We regularly obtain this advice, often from accountants that are dual qualified, so that they can advise on the tax implications for a spouse that is living here and a spouse that is living in another country.

When international couples separate, one of them may want to move to another country with the children. You cannot take your children to live in another country without the agreement of your spouse or a court order allowing you to do this. If you do take your children to live in another country without your spouse’s consent this is likely to be considered child abduction. You need to take specialist advice before making any decisions regarding arrangements for your children.

If you can get divorced in more than one country you need to issue your divorce proceedings in your country of choice as quickly as possible, as your spouse may also be taking legal advice and may want to issue divorce proceedings in different country from you because it is more beneficial for them. The country where the divorce proceedings are first issued will usually deal with the divorce.

If you can get divorced in more than one country it is very important that you take specialist advice from a divorce lawyer qualified in the relevant jurisdictions. The financial settlements that divorce courts make vary significantly from country to country. The English and Welsh courts have traditionally been more generous to the less wealthy spouse than in other countries, which has resulted in many high profile international divorces taking place here. Only when you have received specialist advice can you decide which in country is best for you to get divorced.

International couples can often get divorced in more than one country. Where you get divorced can have a significant impact on the financial settlement that you receive and the amount of time that it takes to get divorced. You therefore need to find out what your options are before divorce proceedings are started.

• If you are from England or Wales but currently live in another country, you may not be able to get divorced here unless you or your spouse returns to live here for a period of time. You are likely to be able to get divorced where you currently live. Taking specialist advice at an early stage can help you decide if you need to take certain actions to make sure that you are in the best possible position should you decide to divorce
• If you are not from England or Wales but currently live in England or Wales, you are likely to be able to get divorced here
• If you are not from England or Wales but your spouse is and neither of you currently lives here, you may be able to get divorced here

The executor of a Will is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the deceased’s estate is properly wound up and that the wishes in their Will are carried out.

To remove an appointed executor from a Will, the beneficiaries under the Will, together with any other interested parties, must be able to prove to the court that the executor is ‘unsuitable’ and/or ‘incapable’ of carrying out their duties.

Unsuitability

The court will only take into consideration a breakdown of a relationship between an executor and the beneficiaries, only in circumstances where it makes the take of the executor impossible.

Therefore in the context of unsuitability, to remove an executor evidence will need to be provided that the executor has acted unlawfully and/or in conflict with his duties under the Will. This can involve a range of issues that would be construed as misconduct, ranging from incompetence in the administration of the estate, misappropriation of assets, to acts of dishonesty.

The court does not necessarily need to determine wrongdoing or default on the part of the executor, the guiding principle of the court is to determine the suitability of an executor and whether the administration of the estate is being carried out properly.

Incapability

Such consideration in these circumstances relates to whether the executor is physically or mentally well enough to administer the estate. An executor may be incapable of carrying out their duties if they have suffered a physical or mental impairment. If in the circumstances an executor does not agree to step down, then legal action may be required to prove their impairment and the impact it has on their capacity as an executor.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in the UK govern the procedure for civil litigation. The costs rules under the CPR outline how costs are managed and awarded during legal proceedings. These rules include guidelines on the types of costs that can be claimed, the assessment of costs, the factors considered by the court when making cost orders, and the procedures for detailed assessment of costs.

The general rules relating to costs contained in the CPR continue to apply in claims under the I(PFD)A 1975. As such, the general rule remains that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party but the court may make a range of different orders.
As set out by Henderson J in Kostic v Chapman [2007] EWHC 2909 (Ch) at [4]:

‘The costs of a contentious probate action, like those of any other civil claim, are within the discretion of the court, and CPR Parts 43 and 44 will apply. The general rule, enshrined in CPR 44.3(2)(a), is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party, or in other words that costs follow the event.’

Therefore, it is with this in mind that serious consideration must be given before issuing an application to the court, there are significant potential costs consequences to litigation.

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, an application for reasonable financial provision from the estate of a deceased person must typically be made within six months from the grant of probate. However, the court does have the discretion to allow applications to be made after this time frame in certain circumstances, but it’s generally recommended to adhere to the six-month limit whenever possible.

Unfortunately in litigation there are no guarantees on timescales, the amount of time necessary to resolve a claim is very much based on the facts of any given case. This will depend on which court the application is issued in, it can range from between 9 to 18 months to resolve unless there is an earlier settlement

The court has a wide discretion of what Orders may be made under the I(PFD)A 1975. If the court is satisfied that reasonable financial provision has not been made for the applicant, it has a wide discretion under I(PFD)A 1975, s 2 to make a variety of orders to ensure such provision including:

• (a) an order for periodical payments;
• (b) an order for a lump sum payment;
• (c) an order for the transfer of estate property;
• (d) an order for the settlement for the benefit of the applicant of estate property;
• (e) an order for the acquisition of property out of estate assets for the claimant or for settlement for his benefit;
• (f) an order varying ante or post-nuptial settlements made on the deceased’s marriage, the variation being for the benefit of the surviving spouse, any child of the marriage or any person treated as a child of the marriage;
• (g) an order varying trusts on which estate assets are held, whether under the will or intestacy rules; and
• (h) an order varying any settlement made during the subsistence of a civil partnership or in anticipation of a civil partnership the variation being for the benefit of the surviving civil partner, any child of the civil partnership or any person treated as a child of the civil partnership

When assessing a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the court considers various factors to determine the appropriate provision to be made. These factors include:

• Financial needs and resources of the claimant: The court examines the claimant’s financial situation, including their income, assets, and liabilities, as well as their future financial needs and obligations.
• Obligations and responsibilities of the deceased: The court considers the deceased’s obligations towards the claimant, such as any financial support they provided during their lifetime or any promises made regarding inheritance.
• Size and nature of the estate: The court assesses the value and composition of the deceased’s estate, including any property, investments, savings, and other assets.
• Any other relevant circumstances: The court takes into account any other factors that may be relevant to the case, such as the claimant’s relationship with the deceased, the duration of the relationship, and the reasons why the deceased’s will or intestacy rules do not adequately provide for the claimant.

Based on these factors, the court determines what provision should be made from the estate to ensure that the claimant’s financial needs are met fairly and reasonably. This could involve adjusting the distribution of the estate or making additional financial provisions to address a claimant’s needs.

The I(PFD)A 1975 came into force on the 1st April 1976 to replace and update the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 and sections 26–28 Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. Whilst the I(PFD)A 1975 applies only in England and Wales, legislation in neighbouring jurisdictions in the UK have adopted similar provisions.

The I(PFD)A 1975 provides a mechanism which eligible claimants can seek ‘reasonable financial provision’ from a deceased’s estate, whether it is subject to a Will or falls under the Intestacy Rules. What this mean is that certain individuals, who were maintained by the deceased, may be eligible to bring a claim if they believe that the deceased’s Will or the Intestacy Rules do not adequately provide for them.

However, in order to be eligible to pursue a claim pursuant to the I(PFD)A 1975, a prospective claimant must be able to demonstrate that they fall within the relevant class as set out in I(PFD)A 1975, s 1(1) this includes:

• The spouse or civil partner of the deceased;

The burden rests with a claimant to prove their marital or civil partnership status for the purposes of any claim. Ordinarily, exhibiting a marriage certificate or civil partnership document to the applicant’s evidence will suffice this requirement.

Further advice may be required in circumstances where the marriage was foreign, religious or void marriage.

• A former spouse or former civil partner of the deceased;

In cases where the deceased passes away shortly after a divorce or dissolution, the I(PFD)A 1975 provides a discretion for the court to effectively treat the former spouse as though there had been no divorce or dissolution.

I(PFD)A 1975, s 14 provides that the court may exercise its discretion where the deceased died within 12 months from the date on which a marriage/ civil partnership was brough to an end, be it by Decree Absolute, Final Order or Decree of Nullity.

Specifically, s 14 provides the circumstances that the court will consider: –

(a) application for a financial provision order under MCA 1973, s 23 or a property adjustment order under MCA 1973, s 24 has not been made by the other party to that marriage; or

(b) such an application has been made but the proceedings thereon have not been determined at the time of the death of the deceased.

• A cohabitee;

If the deceased died on or after 1 January 1996 and, during the whole of the period of 2 years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died, the person was living:

(i) in the same household as the deceased, and
(ii) as if that person and the deceased were a married couple or civil partners.

• A child of the deceased;

Under I(PFD)A 1975, s.25, claims are not just limited to current biological children. Claims can be brought on behalf of a child that has yet to be born (en ventre sa mere), and children that were ‘treated as a child of the deceased’, for example a step-child.
Regarding the latter, circumstances are dependent on the specific facts of the case. In deciding whether reasonable provision has been made for a non-biological child, in addition to the factors appliable to all claimants further additional considerations must be given, this can include but is not limited to: –

• whether the deceased maintained the non-biological child, if so, consideration is to be given to 1) the length of time for which contribution were made; 2) basis on which the deceased did so, and 3) to the value contribution made by way of maintenance and, to what extent the deceased assumed responsibility for the maintenance;
• whether in maintaining or assuming responsibility for maintaining the applicant the deceased did so knowing that the child was not their own child; and
• the liability of any other person to maintain the child (i.e. biological parent to a step-child).

• Any person (not being a person included in the foregoing paragraphs of this subsection) who immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased.

The inclusion of this class of claimant can be far reaching in scope. I(PFD)A 1975, s 1(3) provides that ‘a person is to be treated as being maintained by the deceased (either wholly or partly, as the case may be) only if the deceased was making a substantial contribution in money or money’s worth towards the reasonable needs of that person, other than a contribution made for valuable consideration pursuant to an arrangement of a commercial nature.’

The concept of a person that was maintained by the deceased was considered further in the case of Ilot v Mitson (No.2) [2017], where the courts determined the following criteria: –

• Maintenance connotes payments which enable an applicant to discharge the costs of their daily living at whatever standard is appropriate to them; the provision is to be made to meet recurring expenses, being expenses of living of an income nature.
• An award can be made by way of a lump sum, paying off debts or the purchase of a property to meet a housing need.
• The level of maintenance to be provided is flexible and falls to be decided on the facts of each case: it is not limited to subsistence level but is to be judged by the standard appropriate in the circumstances.
• The applicant must show “something more” to establish a claim beyond living in necessitous circumstances and having a qualifying relationship with the Deceased.
• Determining whether reasonable financial provision has been made for the applicant by the Will or the intestacy rules should be assessed as at the date of the hearing and not for example as at the date the Will was made. The circumstances of the applicant may have changed owing to chronic illness or incapacity.

This can be difficult and other options will need to be explored. Outside of traditional lending a specialised loan facilities for legal proceedings can be considered.

A litigation loan, also known as litigation funding or litigation finance, is a financial arrangement where a third-party funder provides funding to cover the costs associated with litigation in exchange for a portion of any financial recovery obtained through the litigation.

Here’s how it typically works:

• The litigation funder agrees to provide funds to cover legal fees, court costs, expert witness fees, and other expenses associated with pursuing a legal claim.
• In exchange for providing funding, the litigation funder typically receives a portion of any financial recovery obtained through the litigation. This could be a percentage of the damages awarded by the court or a percentage of any settlement reached between the parties.

Litigation funding can be particularly useful for individuals or businesses who may not have the financial resources to pursue a legal claim on their own. It allows them to access the legal system and seek redress for their grievances without having to bear the full financial burden of litigation upfront.

However, it’s important to carefully consider the terms of any litigation funding arrangement, as the costs associated with litigation finance can be significant. Additionally, not all cases may be suitable for litigation funding, so it’s advisable to seek legal advice and explore all available options before entering into such an arrangement.

The cost of a TOLATA (Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) claim can vary widely depending on several factors, including the complexity of the case, the level of cooperation between the parties, the need for expert evidence, and whether the case goes to trial. Some potential costs associated with a TOLATA claim may include:

• Legal Fees: Legal fees can vary depending on the law firm’s hourly rates, the amount of work required, and whether the case settles or goes to trial. In some cases, lawyers may work on a fixed-fee basis for certain stages of the case.
• Court Fees: There are fees associated with filing court documents and initiating court proceedings. The amount of these fees can vary depending on the value of the claim and the specific court where the case is heard.
• Expert Witness Fees: If expert evidence is needed to support the parties’ positions, there may be additional costs associated with hiring experts, such as property valuers or surveyors.
• Mediation or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Costs: If the parties choose to pursue mediation or other forms of ADR to resolve the dispute, there may be costs associated with hiring a mediator or participating in the process.
• Trial Costs: If the case proceeds to trial, there may be additional costs associated with preparing court documents, obtaining witness statements, and presenting evidence in court.

Overall, the cost of a TOLATA claim can vary significantly depending on the specific circumstances of the case. It’s essential for parties considering a TOLATA claim to discuss potential costs with their legal advisor and consider the most cost-effective strategies for resolving the dispute.

No, but it is sensible to get independent legal advice, particularly is there are points of contention regarding the division of assets.

If a separation is amicable, parties can still benefit from legal advise as a well drafted separation agreement can capture the terms of the settlement which includes primarily financial matters to avoid any future disputes that could cost thousands of pounds. A separation agreement will provide certainty

Yes there are alternative options to court litigation. Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the UK refers to methods of resolving disputes outside of traditional court proceedings. ADR methods are generally considered to be faster, less formal, and more cost-effective than litigation. Some common forms of ADR in the UK include:

• Mediation: A neutral third party, called a mediator, facilitates discussions between the parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Mediation is voluntary, confidential, and can be used to resolve a wide range of disputes, including those related to family, employment, commercial, and property matters.
• Arbitration: Parties submit their dispute to an impartial arbitrator, who makes a binding decision based on the evidence presented. Arbitration can be faster and more flexible than litigation, and parties can choose their arbitrator and the rules that will govern the process.
• Negotiation: Parties can attempt to resolve their dispute through direct negotiation, either independently or with the assistance of legal representatives. Negotiation allows parties to reach a settlement agreement tailored to their specific needs and interests.
• Collaborative Law: Each party is represented by their own collaboratively trained lawyer, and all parties agree to work together to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Collaborative law encourages open communication and cooperation between the parties and their lawyers.

ADR is often encouraged by the courts in the UK, and parties may be required to consider ADR before proceeding to trial. ADR can offer numerous benefits, including cost savings, faster resolution times, and greater control over the outcome of the dispute. However, it’s essential for parties to carefully consider their options and seek legal advice