Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Diverse Families and Will Drafting: DEI Considerations for Modern Estate Planning

· 23 min

Executive Summary

The demographic transformation of the United Kingdom demands a fundamental reassessment of will drafting practices across the private client sector. With 3.5 million cohabiting couple families representing 17.7% of all families, over two-thirds of same-sex couples neither married nor in civil partnership, and 1.1 million dependent children in stepfamilies, practitioners face unprecedented complexity in serving modern family structures.123 The decision in Kaur v Singh [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam), concerning an estate valued at between £1.2 million and £1.9 million, established that culturally-motivated disinheritance cannot override the protective function of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, creating significant implications for practitioners advising clients with specific religious or cultural succession preferences.4 This article provides solicitors with a systematic framework for client intake, risk assessment, and drafting strategies that address diverse family configurations while maintaining compliance with SRA Principle 6 obligations and managing contentious probate exposure.

1. Introduction: The Demographic Imperative

The composition of families in England and Wales has undergone structural transformation over the past two decades, yet the intestacy framework governing succession on death remains fundamentally unchanged since the Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014 adjusted the statutory legacy threshold.5 This disconnect between demographic reality and legal provision creates both professional obligation and commercial opportunity for private client practitioners.

Office for National Statistics data from 2024 reveals that cohabiting couple families now number 3.5 million, representing 17.7% of all families in the United Kingdom, an increase from 3.1 million (16.4%) in 2014.1 The trajectory is particularly pronounced among younger age cohorts: among couples where one partner is aged 25-29, 71.6% are cohabiting rather than married, compared with 56.5% in 2011.6 This generational shift suggests that cohabitation as a family structure will become increasingly prevalent as these cohorts age into prime estate planning demographics.

The legal vulnerability of cohabiting partners under intestacy rules remains acute. Unlike surviving spouses and civil partners, who receive all personal chattels, the first £322,000 as statutory legacy, and half the residue absolutely where children exist, cohabiting partners have no automatic inheritance rights whatsoever.78 A cohabitant of thirty years standing, having contributed to property acquisition and raised children jointly with the deceased, receives nothing under intestacy unless they successfully pursue a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Similar vulnerabilities affect stepchildren, who number 1.1 million dependent children according to Census 2021 data.3 Despite potentially being raised from infancy by a step-parent, stepchildren have no intestacy rights in respect of that step-parent's estate absent adoption. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners confirms the prevalence of this issue: a 2021 survey found that 97% of advisors have assisted blended families with estate planning, indicating that such families represent the norm rather than the exception in modern practice.9

The religious composition of the population adds further complexity. The Muslim population of England and Wales reached 3.9 million (6.5%) in 2021, up from 2.7 million (4.9%) in 2011.10 With an average age of 27 years compared to 40 years for the general population, this demographic will increasingly engage with estate planning services. Islamic succession principles, which limit testamentary freedom to one-third of the estate with the remainder distributed according to fixed shares, create potential tension with both UK testamentary freedom and the 1975 Act's protective provisions.

The Law Commission's Modernising Wills report, published in May 2025, acknowledged these demographic changes but focused primarily on technical aspects of will execution rather than substantive succession reform.11 The government welcomed the Commission's recommendations regarding electronic wills and the adoption of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 test for testamentary capacity, but confirmed no legislative timetable. Practitioners therefore continue to operate within a succession framework designed for family structures that increasingly represent a minority of their client base.

2.1 Cohabiting Partners

The legal position of cohabiting partners represents the most significant succession vulnerability in contemporary practice. Despite cohabitation being the fastest-growing family type, the law provides no automatic recognition of cohabiting relationships for inheritance purposes.

Under the intestacy rules, the surviving spouse or civil partner receives the statutory legacy of £322,000 (increased from £270,000 with effect from 26 July 2023), all personal chattels, and half the residue absolutely where the deceased left children.78 A cohabiting partner receives nothing automatically. The Law Commission's 2011 recommendations for cohabitant inheritance rights remain unimplemented, leaving cohabiting partners reliant on the uncertain remedy of a 1975 Act claim.

To succeed under section 1(1)(ba) of the 1975 Act, a cohabitant must demonstrate that they lived in the same household as the deceased for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date of death and were living during that period as the husband or wife (or civil partner) of the deceased.12 The standard of provision is maintenance only, not reasonable financial provision as applies to spouses. This creates substantial uncertainty: even a successful claimant may receive significantly less than an equivalent spouse would receive under intestacy.

The inheritance tax position compounds this vulnerability. Transfers between spouses and civil partners benefit from the spouse exemption, rendering most lifetime and death transfers free from IHT. Cohabiting partners enjoy no equivalent relief. An estate passing to a cohabiting partner faces the full IHT charge at 40% on values above the nil-rate band (currently £325,000), potentially requiring property sale to fund the tax liability where liquid assets are insufficient.13

2.2 Blended Families and Stepchildren

Stepchildren occupy a precarious position under English succession law. Absent adoption, a stepchild has no inheritance rights under intestacy regardless of the closeness of the relationship with the step-parent or the duration of their integration into the family unit.

The Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014 did extend the category of eligible claimants under the 1975 Act. Section 1(1)(d) now includes any person who, immediately before the death of the deceased, was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased and who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to any marriage or civil partnership to which the deceased was at any time a party, or otherwise in relation to any family in which the deceased at any time stood in the role of a parent.14 This amendment removed the previous requirement that the child be treated as such within the context of a marriage, acknowledging modern family configurations.

However, the 1975 Act provides an uncertain remedy. The court must consider the manner in which the applicant was being or might have been expected to be educated or trained and the extent to which the deceased had assumed responsibility for the applicant's maintenance.15 Adult stepchildren with independent means face particular difficulty establishing entitlement, regardless of their emotional relationship with the deceased step-parent.

The practical challenge for blended families is balancing provision for a surviving spouse (who may be a step-parent to the deceased's children from a prior relationship) against the claims of biological children from that earlier relationship. The common scenario where a testator leaves everything to their current spouse, intending that assets pass to all children on the spouse's subsequent death, carries significant risk: the surviving spouse has full testamentary freedom and may ultimately benefit their own children exclusively.

2.3 LGBTQ+ Families

Same-sex couples benefit from formal equality in succession law following the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Married same-sex couples and those in civil partnerships enjoy identical intestacy rights, IHT exemptions, and 1975 Act protections as opposite-sex married couples.

However, the demographic reality indicates that over two-thirds of same-sex couples are neither married nor in civil partnership.2 These couples face the same vulnerabilities as opposite-sex cohabitants, with the added complexity that family recognition may be less forthcoming in some contexts.

Parental responsibility for children in LGBTQ+ families presents particular drafting challenges. Where a child is born to a same-sex couple through surrogacy or donor conception, the non-biological parent may not have automatic parental responsibility. Guardianship appointments therefore assume heightened importance, and practitioners must verify the legal parentage position before advising on succession planning.16

The international dimension affects LGBTQ+ clients disproportionately. Same-sex marriage and civil partnership lack recognition in numerous jurisdictions. Clients with assets in such jurisdictions may face succession rules that ignore their UK relationship entirely, necessitating parallel planning under local law and potentially creating conflicts between estate plans.

2.4 Religious and Cultural Considerations

The intersection of religious succession expectations with UK testamentary freedom creates professional challenges requiring careful navigation. Islamic inheritance principles (faraid) allocate fixed shares to specified relatives, with testamentary freedom limited to one-third of the estate (wassiyah). Hindu joint family property concepts (Mitakshara) assume coparcenary ownership that passes by survivorship rather than testamentary disposition.

UK law provides unfettered testamentary freedom: a testator may dispose of their estate as they wish, without obligation to follow religious or cultural patterns. However, the 1975 Act constrains this freedom where dependants are inadequately provided for, as Kaur v Singh dramatically illustrated.4

The Home Office's 2018 independent review of sharia councils confirmed that UK domestic law prevails in all circumstances; sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction over inheritance matters.17 Practitioners may facilitate wills that reflect religious preferences provided those wills comply with UK formality requirements and adequately provide for dependants who might otherwise claim under the 1975 Act.

3. Kaur v Singh and the Limits of Testamentary Freedom

The decision of Peel J in Kaur v Singh [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam) provides essential guidance on the limits of culturally-motivated testamentary provisions and creates significant implications for practitioner advice.4

3.1 Facts and Decision

Mrs Kaur, aged 83 at the time of proceedings, had been married to her husband for 66 years. Mr Singh died leaving an estate valued at between £1.2 million and £1.9 million, comprising primarily the matrimonial home and accumulated savings. His will, executed four years before death, left the entire estate to his two adult sons "down the male line," explicitly excluding his wife on the basis of Sikh cultural tradition that sons should inherit to continue the family line.

Mrs Kaur brought a claim under the 1975 Act. The sons defended on the basis that their father's wishes reflected genuine cultural and religious belief, that their mother had been supported during the marriage and would continue to be supported by them, and that the estate was accumulated through the father's efforts rather than joint contribution.

Peel J found this "the clearest possible case" for provision. Applying the cross-check under section 3(2) of the 1975 Act, which requires the court to have regard to provision that the applicant might reasonably have expected to receive on divorce, the judge awarded Mrs Kaur 50% of the net estate. The cultural justification for the testamentary disposition was accorded no weight in determining reasonable provision.

3.2 Implications for Practice

Kaur v Singh establishes several principles of direct relevance to practitioners advising clients with cultural or religious succession preferences.

First, cultural motivation provides no defence to a 1975 Act claim. A surviving spouse who has contributed to the marriage over decades will receive provision regardless of the testator's cultural or religious rationale for exclusion. The cultural context may explain the testator's decision but does not justify it in law.

Second, the divorce cross-check provides a powerful analytical tool for quantifying spousal claims. A spouse who would receive 50% or more on divorce can reasonably expect at least equivalent provision on death. Practitioners must assess likely 1975 Act exposure when drafting wills that make less-than-equal provision for spouses.

Third, summary determination under Part 8 procedure offers claimants an expedited route to resolution in clear cases. The traditional assumption that 1975 Act claims require full trial may not hold where liability is obvious.

The contrast with Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 is instructive. In Ilott, the Supreme Court restored the original £50,000 award (reduced from the Court of Appeal's £143,000) for an adult daughter estranged from her mother for 26 years, the mother having left her entire £486,000 estate to charity.18 The Supreme Court emphasised that "maintenance" under the 1975 Act does not extend to everything that might be desirable, and that testamentary freedom retains significant weight. Where Kaur v Singh involved a surviving spouse of 66 years to whom the court applied the more generous "reasonable financial provision" standard, Ilott concerned an adult child subject to the lower "maintenance" threshold. Practitioners advising on diverse family situations must distinguish between these standards: spousal claims carry materially greater weight than those of adult children, particularly estranged adult children, and the risk calculus for inadequate spousal provision is accordingly more acute.

The practical implication for practitioners is that duty to advise on claim risk must extend to culturally-motivated provisions. A practitioner who drafts a will excluding or substantially under-providing for a spouse without advising on the 1975 Act exposure may face professional negligence claims if the estate subsequently incurs significant legal costs defending or settling a claim.19

4. Drafting Strategies for Diverse Families

4.1 Life Interest Trusts for Blended Families

The life interest trust remains the primary structural solution for balancing competing interests in blended family situations. Under this arrangement, the surviving spouse receives a life interest in trust assets (typically including the right to occupy the former matrimonial home), with remainder passing to the deceased's children on the spouse's death.20

The drafting requires careful attention to several elements. The life tenant's rights should be clearly specified: does the interest include a right to occupy property, to receive income, or both? What happens if the property is sold - does the life tenant receive occupation of a replacement property, or does the interest convert to an income interest in proceeds? Can the trustees advance capital to the life tenant, and if so, in what circumstances and subject to what consents?

The remainder beneficiaries' position must also be protected. The trust should specify whether the life tenant can be removed for remarriage, cohabitation, or conduct prejudicial to the remainder interest. Trustees should have power to terminate the life interest early if circumstances change. Administrative powers should enable trustees to manage and invest trust assets effectively over what may be a period of decades.

Tax efficiency requires consideration of the residence nil-rate band (RNRB). For deaths from 6 April 2017, estates passing a qualifying residential interest to direct descendants may claim RNRB (currently £175,000). The definition of qualifying residential interest includes property held in immediate post-death interest trusts where the life tenant is the surviving spouse and the remaindermen are lineal descendants.21 Drafting must ensure the trust qualifies for RNRB to avoid unnecessary IHT on second death.

4.2 Guardianship Appointments

Guardianship assumes particular importance for diverse families where parental responsibility may not automatically follow biological or social relationships. Under section 5 of the Children Act 1989, a parent with parental responsibility may appoint one or more individuals to be the child's guardian in the event of their death.22

For LGBTQ+ families, practitioners must first establish the parental responsibility position. A non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship does not automatically acquire parental responsibility simply by virtue of the relationship. Where a child is born to a civil partner or spouse through donor conception at a licensed clinic, the non-biological parent may have acquired parental responsibility under Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provisions.23 In other cases, parental responsibility may require a parental responsibility agreement or court order.

Only a parent with parental responsibility can appoint a guardian by will. If the non-biological parent lacks parental responsibility and dies, they cannot make a valid guardianship appointment. Conversely, if the biological parent dies leaving a surviving parent with parental responsibility, a testamentary guardian appointment does not take effect until that surviving parent also dies or loses parental responsibility.22

Practitioners should verify parentage and parental responsibility before drafting guardianship provisions and should advise clients without parental responsibility to regularise their position before relying on testamentary guardianship.

4.3 Letters of Wishes

Letters of wishes provide a mechanism for communicating context that would be inappropriate in a will but may assist executors and trustees in exercising discretions. For diverse family situations, letters of wishes can serve several functions.

First, they can explain the rationale for provisions that might otherwise appear unusual or unfair. A testator making unequal provision between biological children and stepchildren can explain the reasons, potentially reducing the risk of dispute by ensuring all parties understand the testator's thinking.

Second, letters of wishes can provide guidance on exercising discretions in discretionary trusts. Where a testator establishes a discretionary trust for a class including both biological children and stepchildren, a letter of wishes can indicate expectations regarding distribution without creating binding obligations that might generate unintended tax consequences.

Third, letters of wishes can address culturally sensitive matters. A testator wishing their estate to be administered consistently with religious principles can express those wishes without incorporating them as binding obligations that might conflict with the duty to provide for dependants.24

Letters of wishes are not legally binding and should not contain dispositive provisions that belong in the will itself. Practitioners should advise clients on the appropriate boundary between testamentary provisions and precatory guidance.

4.4 Flexible Trust Structures

Discretionary trusts offer maximum flexibility for estates where family circumstances may change unpredictably. The trustees hold assets on trust for a class of beneficiaries without any beneficiary having a fixed entitlement, distributing capital and income at their discretion.

For diverse families, the class definition requires particular care. Should the class include stepchildren who were part of the family at the date of the will, or should it extend to future stepchildren of beneficiaries? What happens if a child is adopted out of the family - do they remain within the class? The deceased's cohabitant may need to be within the class even though they are not a spouse, requiring explicit inclusion rather than reliance on standard spouse definitions.

The discretionary trust does not qualify for the spouse exemption or RNRB on first death, creating potential IHT exposure that life interest structures can avoid. However, the flexibility may outweigh the tax cost where family circumstances are complex or uncertain. Hybrid structures combining an immediate post-death interest for the spouse with discretionary remainder provisions can balance tax efficiency against flexibility.

5. Client Intake and Communication Protocols

5.1 DEI-Informed Intake Questionnaires

Effective service delivery to diverse families begins with intake processes that capture relevant information without making assumptions about family structure.25 Standard intake forms designed around married couples with biological children fail to elicit information essential for advising modern families.

Questions should use inclusive language: "partner or spouse" rather than "husband or wife"; "children for whom you have or share parental responsibility" rather than "your children"; "dependants you support financially" rather than relying on assumed family relationships. The questionnaire should explicitly ask about prior relationships, children from those relationships, current family configuration, and any relevant religious or cultural considerations the client wishes to be reflected in their planning.

Practitioners should consider whether their intake processes inadvertently discourage disclosure. A client may not volunteer that they are in a same-sex relationship if intake materials consistently reference "husband and wife." A client from a minority religious background may not mention succession expectations inconsistent with UK law if they perceive the practitioner as unfamiliar with their tradition.

5.2 Managing Expectations and Conflicts

Diverse family situations frequently involve competing expectations that cannot all be satisfied. The surviving spouse expects to be provided for; children from a prior relationship expect their inheritance to be protected; religious family members expect succession principles to be observed. The practitioner's role is to identify these tensions, explain the legal constraints, and facilitate instructions that represent the client's informed choice.

Where instructions create obvious 1975 Act exposure, practitioners must advise on the risk in clear terms. This advice should be documented in the client file. A testator who understands that their will excluding their spouse will likely be successfully challenged and proceeds regardless has made an informed decision; a testator who believes their cultural preferences will be respected without judicial scrutiny has been inadequately advised.

Joint instruction from couples with blended families requires particular care. The SRA Code of Conduct prohibits acting where there is a conflict of interest or significant risk of conflict.26 Where spouses or partners have genuinely divergent interests regarding provision for children from prior relationships, separate representation may be necessary. Practitioners should assess conflict risk at intake and document their reasoning.

5.3 Documentation for Contentious Probate Defence

Contemporaneous file documentation serves a defensive function in diverse family matters where contested succession is foreseeable. The file should record the client's instructions, the advice given (including advice on 1975 Act exposure), the client's response to that advice, and the basis on which the client proceeded.

Where a will makes provision that appears unusual or potentially vulnerable, the file note explaining the client's rationale may prove invaluable if the will is subsequently challenged. Evidence of the testator's understanding of the legal position and deliberate choice to proceed despite advice on risks supports arguments that the will reflects genuine testamentary intention rather than mistake or misunderstanding.

Attendance notes should record the client's presentation, apparent understanding, and any factors relevant to capacity assessment. While Banks v Goodfellow remains the current test for testamentary capacity pending implementation of Law Commission recommendations, detailed contemporaneous records assist in establishing capacity if challenged.1127

Conclusion

The demographic realities documented by ONS data have transformed diverse family practice from a specialist niche into a core competency required of all private client practitioners. Cohabiting partners, stepchildren, LGBTQ+ families, and clients with specific religious or cultural succession expectations now represent a substantial proportion of the client base for any general practice handling succession matters.

SRA Principle 6 creates a regulatory dimension to this professional imperative: solicitors must act in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion.28 This obligation extends beyond internal firm culture to encompass service delivery. Practices that fail to accommodate diverse family structures, whether through inadequate intake processes, insufficient practitioner training, or assumptions embedded in precedent documentation, risk regulatory criticism as well as professional negligence exposure.

Kaur v Singh confirms that the courts will protect dependants regardless of cultural context that may have motivated their exclusion. Practitioners who facilitate wills with substantial 1975 Act exposure without advising clients accordingly expose themselves to negligence claims when estates incur costs defending or settling claims. The prudent approach treats DEI-informed drafting as risk management rather than optional enhancement.

The Law Commission's Modernising Wills recommendations, while focused on execution formalities, acknowledge that succession law must evolve.11 The government's welcome of those recommendations without confirmed legislative timetable leaves practitioners operating within existing frameworks for the foreseeable future. Within those frameworks, the drafting strategies outlined in this article - life interest trusts, carefully specified guardianship appointments, letters of wishes, and flexible trust structures - provide technical mechanisms for addressing the specific challenges diverse families present.

Professional development in this area should encompass both legal knowledge (the 1975 Act, intestacy rules, IHT position of different family configurations) and cultural competency (understanding the succession expectations of different religious and cultural traditions sufficiently to advise on their intersection with UK law). STEP, the Law Society, and professional training providers increasingly offer resources addressing these topics.29 Practitioners who invest in such development position themselves to serve the families that now constitute the demographic mainstream.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Wills and Probate, Family Law, Equality and Diversity

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the specific legal vulnerabilities affecting cohabiting partners, stepchildren, and LGBTQ+ families under current intestacy rules and evaluate appropriate drafting responses.

  2. Apply the principles established in Kaur v Singh [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam) when advising clients with cultural or religious succession preferences, including assessment of Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim risk.

  3. Analyse the tax and succession implications of life interest trust structures for blended families, including qualification for the residence nil-rate band.

  4. Design client intake protocols that capture information essential for advising diverse families while maintaining compliance with SRA Principle 6 obligations.

SRA Competency Mapping

  • A2: Communicate clearly and effectively, orally and in writing, with clients, colleagues and others
  • A4: Draft documents which are legally effective and accurately reflect the client's intentions
  • B2: Identify the relevant facts and law
  • B3: Apply understanding of relevant facts and law to provide advice
  • C1: Act with honesty and integrity

Reflective Questions

  1. How would the intake questionnaires used within current practice need to be modified to capture information essential for advising diverse families effectively?

  2. What additional file documentation would provide adequate defence against professional negligence claims where a will with cultural or religious motivation is subsequently challenged under the 1975 Act?

  3. How might the firm's precedent bank require updating to accommodate life interest trust structures appropriate for blended family situations while ensuring qualification for the residence nil-rate band?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-02-02. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. ONS, Families and Households in the UK: 2024 (23 July 2025). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2024 ↩ ↩2

  2. Kingsley Napley, Estate & Tax Planning for LGBTQ+ Private Clients (2024). https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/services/department/private-client/wills-and-lasting-powers-of-attorney-lpa/estate-and-tax-planning-for-lgbtq-private-clients ↩ ↩2

  3. ONS, Families in England and Wales: Census 2021 (25 January 2023). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/articles/familiesinenglandandwales/census2021 ↩ ↩2

  4. Kaur v Singh [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014, s.1. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/16 ↩

  6. ONS, Population estimates by marital status and living arrangements, England and Wales: 2024 (15 October 2025). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationestimatesbymaritalstatusandlivingarrangements/2024 ↩

  7. HMRC, IHTM12122 - Succession: intestacy: distributions (England & Wales): statutory legacy. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm12122 ↩ ↩2

  8. The Administration of Estates Act 1925, s.46 (as amended). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/section/46 ↩ ↩2

  9. STEP, Meeting the needs of modern families (November 2021). https://www.step.org/meeting-the-needs-of-modern-families ↩

  10. ONS, Religion, England and Wales: Census 2021 (29 November 2022). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021 ↩

  11. Law Commission, Modernising Wills: Final Report (May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/publication/modernising-wills-final-report/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s.1(1)(ba). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63/section/1 ↩

  13. Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.18 (spouse exemption). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/section/18 ↩

  14. Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014, Sch 2, para 2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/16/schedule/2 ↩

  15. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, s.3(3). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63/section/3 ↩

  16. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, ss.42-44. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/part/2 ↩

  17. Home Office, Applying sharia law in England and Wales: independent review (February 2018). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-law-in-england-and-wales-independent-review ↩

  18. Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0203.html ↩

  19. Law Society, What Kaur v Singh tells us about wills and modern values (2023). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/private-client/what-kaur-v-singh-tells-us-about-wills-and-modern-values ↩

  20. Blake Morgan, Wills for blended families: securing inheritance for all children (2024). https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/wills-for-blended-families-securing-inheritance-for-all-children/ ↩

  21. Inheritance Tax Act 1984, s.8A-8M (residence nil-rate band). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/part/I/chapter/IIA ↩

  22. Children Act 1989, s.5. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/5 ↩ ↩2

  23. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Legal parenthood guidance. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/making-the-decision-about-legal-parenthood/ ↩

  24. STEP, EDI Resource Hub. https://www.step.org/knowledge-hub/edi-hub ↩

  25. SRA, Complying with Principle 6 - encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/sra-approach-equality-diversity-inclusion/ ↩

  26. SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, para 6.2. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/ ↩

  27. Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549. ↩

  28. SRA Principles 2019, Principle 6. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/ ↩

  29. Law Society, Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/firm-accreditations/wills-and-inheritance-quality-scheme/ ↩