The law on the revocation of wills has recently been in the spotlight, with the case of Blyth v Sykes. Here we explore the relatively narrow circumstances in which a copy of a will can be admitted when the original document cannot be located without explanation.

Recent case law has increasingly found in favour of validity, particularly where the will has been professionally prepared. The courts’ view appears to be that experienced solicitors would not prepare a will for a person if they feel they did not have capacity or were concerned about their understanding of the same.

Matthew Davies, partner and Head of Business Immigration at Midlands law firm Wright Hassall, responds to the Government’s announcement of post-Brexit immigration changes which ends free movement and brings EEA nationals within a “new” points based system by 2021.

The debate surrounding assisted dying is both ethically sensitive and legally complex. While the law currently prohibits assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961, recent developments and societal shifts have reignited discussions on reform.

Based on the current law, parties can now apply more commercial pressure and consider the wider context of the project as a whole when deciding upon or challenging the contractual liquidated damages figure for culpable delay.

If the true intentions of the person making a will are not contained within their will, it may be possible to contest a will on the grounds of fraud. Fraud is defined in criminal law as being “an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual”.

Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (the “Act”) formalises the procedure for transferring ownership of land. It provides that an agreement for the sale of land can only be made in writing and must be signed by or on behalf of each party.

In case some readers think the answer to the above question is a matter of dry academic law with no practical relevance, some £10 million turned, at least in part, on the distinction between those phrases in the case of Anchor 2020 Ltd v Midas Construction Ltd.

Anyone involved in bringing possession proceedings at the moment must be reeling from the number of changes and the amount of new legislation that is being pushed through. You will find yourselves juggling new law, new forms, and new procedures at Court.

Some years ago, the law made it more difficult for freeholders to apply for forfeiture of leases. The Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Act 2002 placed a hurdle in the way of landlords seeking forfeiture due to breaches of the lease.