Latest Posts

The End of The Zero-Hours Contract?

What the changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025 could mean for your business.

As one of the most common contract types in retail, health & social care and hospitality sectors, the proposed changes to zero-hour contracts in the new Employment Rights Act 2025 will have significant implications for businesses.

What are Zero-Hour Contracts and Where Can They Be Used?

The term zero-hour contract is often used interchangeably with part-time contracts but there are specific and important differences. Currently, under most zero-hour contracts:

• The staff are “workers” not “employees” and have less employment protections;
• There is no statutory obligation to offer or accept shifts on either the business or worker;
• Shifts can generally be scheduled or cancelled at short notice, subject to contract;
• There is no right to compensation or minimum notice required for cancelling or changing shifts;
• There is no presumption that the shifts will be available or offered again.

Proposed Changes

Under the new Employment Rights Act 2025 there are broadly three changes which will have a significant impact on the use of zero-hours contracts:

• There will be a new requirement to offer staff “Guaranteed Hours”;
• There will be a new requirement to provide “reasonable notice” when offer shifts to zero-hour workers and other staff;
• There will be a new requirement to provide “minimum notice” of cancellation or change to shifts.

Each of these are further explained below.

Guaranteed Hours

Staff on either zero-hour contracts or “low-hours” contracts who have worked regular hours over a “reference period” must be offered a contract with guaranteed hours “reflecting” those hours. Within this requirement there are a number of points which the Employment Rights Act does not define:

• What is meant by “low-hours” contracts?
• What is defined as a “reference period”?
• How closely must the contract “reflect” the hours worked during the “reference period”?

These points will be clarified following a formal consultation with key stakeholders. It is anticipated that “reference period” will be between 12 weeks and 6 months but we will have to wait to see the final proposals, likely to be ready by summer this year.

Following the initial “reference period”, businesses must offer the worker the average number of guaranteed hours that they worked during the “reference period”. This must be under new contractual terms guaranteeing those hours, and on the days/times or working pattern that were worked during the reference period.

The worker will have the option to either accept the new offer, or to keep the flexibility of their existing zero-hour contract. Businesses will have to continue to assess the hours worked by staff while they have “low-hours” contracts, after each further “reference period”. The duty to offer guaranteed hours continues at future reference points.

The changes once implemented will require businesses to inform their staff of their rights under the new guaranteed hours regime and keep them informed while they qualify.

Reasonable Notice When Offering Shifts

Businesses will be required to give “reasonable notice” of shifts when offering them to zero-hour workers or shift employees. As with the guaranteed hours changes, the following details have not been defined:

• What is meant by “reasonable notice”; and
• What are the exemptions to the notice requirement.

These terms again will be defined following consultation, expected by the summer of 2026.

The new Act envisages setting a minimum amount of time that has to be provided when offering shifts to zero-hour staff. This however is not defined in the Act and the details will be part of the consultation process.

The requirement to provide “reasonable notice” will also apply to employees who are on rota shift contract, which is where the hours of work are set but the days and pattern of work can vary at the business’s discretion.

Where businesses fail to provide “reasonable notice” for the shifts, the worker can bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal and compensation will be assessed on what the Tribunal “considers just and equitable in all the circumstances to compensate the worker for any financial loss sustained by the worker which is attributable to the matter complained of.” This could lead to claims including bank overdraft charges or credit card late payment fees which the worker faces when a shift they expected is not offered to them.

Minimum Notice of Cancellation or Change

Under the new Act, businesses will have to provide “reasonable notice” of a change or cancellation of a shift which had been accepted by the zero-hour staff. Again, what is meant by “reasonable notice” is still to be defined.

In addition to the requirement to provide “reasonable notice” of changes or cancellation of shifts, the Act introduces the right to compensation for zero-hour staff if their shift is cancelled, moved or curtailed at “short notice”. The zero-hour staff will be entitled to a payment every time there is “short notice” of a cancellation or change of shift. Further, the payment will have to be paid to the staff within a specific time frame.

As with all of the above upcoming changes, the devil will be in the detail, and the Act is yet to define:

• What is meant by “short notice” when cancelling, changing or reducing a shift;
• What exemptions will apply to the “notice” requirement;
• What compensation payment amount will businesses have to make to staff for short notice cancellation and shift changes;
• How quickly businesses have to make the payment.

The Act does specify that “short notice” for cancelling a shift will be less than 48-hours before the proposed shift start time. The meaning of “short notice” when moving a shift or reducing a shift will be set by Government after consultation.

Who Is Covered By The Changes?

Businesses can still be caught by the new regime even if they do not use zero-hour or “low-hour” workers. The new requirements will apply equally to agency workers.

With agency workers, both the end user hirer and agency will have equal responsibility for providing the worker with the necessary notice of changes to shifts. However, the changes specify that is is the agencies which will be responsible for paying the agency worker and have the ability to recoup the cancellation and short notice fee from the end user, subject to the commercial terms of the agreement between the end user and agency.

Implementation Timeline

While the Employment Rights Act 2025 became law on 18 December 2025, the Government has confirmed they will not be implementing these changes immediately. There remains a significant number of specific details to be clarified. Under the Governments current timeline, which updated in February 2026, there is to be a period of consultation on these details, with the changes likely due to come into effect in 2027.

For further information on the Employment Rights Act 2025 and how it could impact your business, get in touch with our Employment Team.

Read More

How to Challenge a Will?

If you believe you have unfairly been left out of a Will or what you have received is below expectations, then the good news is there are multiple ways that a Will can be challenged.

The main ways are:

1. challenging the validity of a Will; and
2. claims for ‘reasonable financial’ provision under The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (often called “the 1975 Act“).

This article will examine Will validity claims, whilst a separate article examines claims under the 1975 Act: Claims Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

How to Challenge the Validity of a Will

If you are considering contesting a Will, it’s important to understand the legal grounds on which a challenge can be made. This article summarises the five main claims by which a Will can be invalidated:

1. Lack of due execution
2. Lack of testamentary capacity
3. Lack of knowledge and approval
4. Undue influence
5. Fraudulent calumny

We also outline what happens if a Will is invalidated and how our team at Quastels LLP can help you navigate this process.

Protecting Your Position

If you are seriously considering a Will validity challenge, then as a first step you should consider entering a caveat at the Probate Registry. For more information on caveats, please see our related article: Probates and Caveats.

1. Lack of Due Execution

One of the first things we advise clients to check is whether the Will was executed correctly. Under the Wills Act 1837, there are strict formal requirements for a Will to be valid. These include rules about how the Will must be signed and witnessed.

If any of these formalities were not followed, the Will is invalid–regardless of whether it reflects the testator’s true intentions. In some cases, this can be a relatively straightforward way to challenge a Will, even if it is legally sound in every other respect.

2. Testamentary Capacity

Lack of testamentary capacity us one of the most common ways to challenge a Will. With people living longer and the concomitant rise of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Dementia, there are an increasing number of old and vulnerable people making wills without the requisite capacity.

The legal test for testamentary capacity remains as set out in the 19th century case, Banks v Goodfellow (1869–70) LR 5 QB 549. There are four limbs to the test, which require that the person making the Will must:

1. understand that s/he is making a Will and what that means;
2. have a good (although not necessarily perfect) understanding of the property and assets that s/he is disposing of;
3. s/he should also be aware of the people who s/he ought to consider in his or her Will, even if to explain why s/he is not benefitting them; and
4. be of sound mind and in possession of his or her faculties of reason.

Additional points to note regarding the Banks v Goodfellow test and incapacity claims include:

• Presumption of capacity: the law assumes a person’s capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary. If sufficient doubt it raised, the burden shifts to those defending the validity of the Will.
• Capacity is relative: the degree of capacity required by the Will maker varies depending on the nature and complexity of the estate or the gift being made. This is to say, the level of capacity required to make a gift of £1,000 will be lower than that of a gift of £1,000,000.
• Testamentary Freedom: it is important to stress that English law allows people the freedom to dispose of their assets as they wish. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that a Will maker may have motives which are capricious, frivolous, mean or even bad. A Will which is unfair or unkind is not a reason for its invalidity.

To assess a claim, the following evidence is usually required:

1. The deceased’s medical records.
2. The deceased’s Will file, where the will was drafted by a professional.
3. Witness evidence from doctors and those in close contact with the deceased around the time the will was prepared.
4. An expert report by a suitably qualified doctor to review all the evidence and give a retrospective medical opinion on the deceased person’s likely capacity.

The Will disputes team at Quastels LLP can help you gather and assess this evidence and give you a clear view on whether a claim is worth pursuing–and what it might cost.

3. Knowledge and Approval

Another major claim–often the hardest for the general public to grasp–is that a will can be invalid for “want of knowledge and approval.” In short, a testator must know and approve the contents of their Will. While this may sound similar to limbs 1–3 of the Banks v Goodfellow test on capacity, it is a separate, standalone claim. It should not be underestimated: this ground has succeeded where all others have failed.

Whereas capacity is a general question, knowledge and approval is specific. A good example is someone who cannot read – they may have the requisite capacity to make a Will but if they sign a document without understanding its contents because they were unable to read it or it was not explained to them, they would not be considered to have had the requisite knowledge and approval of its contents.

The burden of proof lies with the person seeking to uphold the Will. This claim often runs alongside incapacity arguments and can rescue a case that might otherwise fail. It is a technical area where good legal advice is essential.

At Quastels LLP, our lawyers are adept at identifying and pursuing knowledge and approval claims, often in combination with other grounds. If you suspect a will was signed without proper understanding, we can review the circumstances and advise on the best strategy to protect your interests.

4. Undue Influence

A Will may be challenged under English law on the grounds of undue influence–a claim that is difficult to prove, with few cases succeeding.

To establish undue influence, it must be shown that the testator was subject to such influence at the time the will was executed and, as a result, was coerced (or fraudulently misdirected) into making it. Mere suspicion is not enough: the facts must be “inconsistent with any other hypothesis”. In other words, there must be no plausible explanation for the will other than undue influence–a very high threshold.

The Court of Appeal in Rea v Rea reinforced this difficulty, confirming that influence alone is not unlawful. To succeed, there must be evidence–or strong influence–of actual coercion, such that the testator’s free will was overborne and dominated by another person.

It is also important to note that unsuccessful undue influence claims can result in adverse costs orders, meaning the claimant may be required to pay the opponent’s legal costs. For this reason, it is always prudent to seek specialist advice early, so the merits of any potential claim can be properly assessed.

Unlike challenges based on lack of capacity or want of knowledge and approval, the burden of proof in undue influence cases rests entirely on the party alleging it.

5. Fraudulent Calumny

Fraudulent calumny is a distinct claim, though often compared to undue influence. It arises where:

“[Party] A poisons the testator’s mind against [Party] B–who would otherwise be a natural beneficiary–by casting dishonest aspersions on B’s character.”

To succeed, a claimant must approve all three elements:

1. False statements: Party Q made false statements about you to the testator regarding your character;
2. Knowledge or recklessness: Those statements were made knowing they were false, or with reckless disregard for the truth; and
3. Causation: You would have been a natural beneficiary but for Party A’s conduct.

Although clients often wish to explore this route, fraudulent calumny is the most challenging of all Will-dispute claims. Like undue influence, it carries significant cost risks if unsuccessful. For this reason, prospective claimants should always seek specialist advice before proceeding.

What Happens Next?

If a Will is successfully invalidated, the testator’s previous Will usually takes effect. If there is no earlier Will, the estate will be distributed under the intestacy rules.

It is therefore crucial to consider the practical consequences of a Will challenge. For example, if an earlier will contains similar provisions, the effort and cost of litigation may achieve little. In some cases, multiple Wills may need to be contested to achieve the desired outcome.

For these reasons, clients should always seek specialist advice before proceeding, to ensure that any potential claim is both viable and worth pursuing.

Costs

The general rule in litigation is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. Probate disputes, however, allow for an important exception: where investigations were justified, the Court may order the deceased’s estate to cover the costs of any reasonable inquiries.

In rare cases, claimants may also recover costs from professional Will-drafters if their failure to keep proper records or follow established drafting conventions contributed to the dispute.

If you are concerned about potential costs, seek specialist advice early. A professional can help assess the merits of your claim and advise on strategies to minimise financial risk.

Conclusion

Whilst there may be ways to challenge a Will, potential claimants should obtain specialist advice as soon as possible in order to secure crucial evidence and to assess the merits of any claim before embarking on potentially risky litigation. The Will disputes team at Quastels LLP is adept in helping claimants at all stages of their claim.

Read More

The English Concept of Domicile and How to Challenge It

This article examines the English concept of domicile, explaining why it is important and should not be confused with residency, nationality or immigration status. It also considers the evidence the English Court will examine when a person’s domicile is challenged.

The English concept of domicile is based on English common law, i.e. historic case law, and it is different to what might be understood by the term ‘domicile’ in other jurisdictions, in particular civil jurisdictions where the term domicile for the most part is interchangeable with residency. It is also not uncommon for people, especially internationally mobile HNW individuals and executives, to have a domicile which is different to their residency and/or nationality. The English meaning of domicile can be partly understood as meaning someone’s “permanent home”.

The Law

There are three types of domicile: a domicile of origin, a domicile of choice and a domicile of dependency.

1. Domicile of Origin

In English common law, every person is born with a domicile of origin, which is then their domicile until it is displaced notwithstanding that it is possessed involuntarily. The domicile of origin of a legitimate child born during the lifetime of his father is his father’s domicile at the time of birth.

For the avoidance of doubt a domicile of origin cannot be chosen and can only be lost if a new domicile of choice (see paragraph 2 below) is acquired. A person’s domicile of origin remains their default domicile for their entire life but can in certain circumstances revive if a person’s domicile of choice is abandoned (see paragraph 3 below).

2. Acquisition of Domicile of Choice

Once 16 years old, a person may displace their domicile of origin by acquiring a domicile of choice. A person acquires a domicile of choice in another jurisdiction by residing there with an intention to do so permanently or for an unlimited time. Therefore, there are two distinct parts to acquiring a domicile of choice, namely:

1. the individual must physically reside in their country of choice (rather than be a mere traveller or occasional visitor); and
2. have an intention to reside in that jurisdiction permanently and indefinitely, which intention is not limited for a particular period or particular purpose.

It is the second limb of this test which can mean a domicile of choice is hard to obtain despite many years or even decades of residency in a foreign jurisdiction. Direct evidence that the individual in question intended to reside permanently in his chosen jurisdiction of residence is required before s/he can definitively be said to have lost his or her domicile of origin and acquired a new domicile of choice. This notwithstanding:

1. If a person determines to spend the rest of his life in a jurisdiction, then he has the necessary intention, even if he does not consider that decision to be irrevocable. The absence of any intention to leave may suffice.
2. It will not be sufficient if there is an intention to return to the jurisdiction of previous domicile at some point, so that although present residence is indefinite, it is not unlimited in time, unless that intention is so vague as not to be properly formed.

3. Loss of Domicile of Choice

If a domicile of choice is never acquired, or is acquired but then abandoned, the domicile of origin will prevail (i.e. revive).

A domicile of choice is abandoned by giving up both the residence and the intention necessary for its acquisition in the first place.

4. Domicile of Dependency

This concept is less relevant today but is still worth bearing in mind:

1. Legitimate children up to the age of 16 are dependent on their father’s domicile, as set out above. Where a child is born out of wedlock or their father is deceased, they may take on their mother’s domicile.
2. Women who were married before the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 came into effect in 1973 took on their husband’s domicile.

Why is Domicile Important?

The English concept of domicile matters because it determines which legal system has the strongest claim over a person’s life for core issues such as taxation, succession, and jurisdiction. It is far more enduring than residence and often decisive in private wealth disputes.

Tax

Domicile is central to determining an individual’s exposure to UK taxation, particularly inheritance tax. It dictates whether a person is taxed on their worldwide estate or only on UK-situated assets, and it governs access to favourable regimes historically available to non-UK domiciled individuals. Because domicile is difficult to change and heavily intention-based, it often becomes a decisive issue in tax planning and disputes involving internationally mobile clients.

Succession

In cross-border estates, domicile determines which country’s succession laws apply on death. This can affect the validity of wills, the distribution of assets, and the interaction with forced-heirship regimes overseas. In contentious private wealth matters, establishing a deceased’s true domicile frequently shapes the entire litigation strategy, as it may determine both the applicable law and the rights of competing beneficiaries. For example, to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the deceased must have died domiciled in England and Wales.

Family Law

Domicile also plays a significant role in family law, influencing jurisdiction for divorce, financial relief, and the recognition of foreign marriages or divorces. Because domicile is treated as a person’s “personal law,” it can affect questions of capacity and personal status. Its enduring nature means that domicile often anchors jurisdiction even when individuals have lived in multiple countries.

How to Challenge Domicile

Where domicile is in dispute, it must be determined by the English Court, which will normally order a hearing so that it can review all the facts and come to a decision. The burden of proof for proving that an individual has acquired domicile of choice is that of the person or entity alleging it.

Domicile disputes are very fact sensitive and judges have a wide amount of discretion to decide them. Therefore, trials regarding domicile can be unpredictable and each case will turn on its own specific facts.

However, the court will tend to examine the following categories of evidence before making an overall assessment on the balance of probabilities:

Family Background: the court will want to review a person’s family background in detail including the birthplace of parents and grandparents. It will also examine marriages, divorces and conduct a careful review of where the person in question lived as a child and with whom. The court will also examine a person’s current family including the birthplace and nationality of any spouse and children. Family ties are also important and the court will look to understand where close family members reside and where a person’s children are educated, as this can indicate where a person’s ‘domicile’ or ‘permanent home’ might be.

Physical Presence: the court will want a full history of where the person in question has lived and why, i.e. for school, work etc. Dates of residence in a particular country and intention regarding residence there will be examined. The court will also examine residency, where a person pays taxes and what citizenship they hold. It will also require information on visits to a person’s country of birth and will want to examine a person’s relationship with their country of origin.

Property and Assets: the court will want to know where a person owns property and hold assets. This includes the location of any family home, pensions, bank accounts, investments etc. The analysis can be quite granular and the court may go as far as to examine which bank accounts etc. are or have been used most frequently to understand where a person has been resident or visits most frequently.

Social Ties: the court will even go as far as examining a person’s social ties, including if they belong to any clubs, what football team they support and where their registered doctor and dentist are located. They will also look to understand where a person has voted and what causes or interests he or she support.

Therefore, for highly mobile individuals, a domicile challenge is likely to involve a significant examination of their personal life. Small and seemingly insignificant details can make all the difference and should not be underestimated.

The Private Wealth Disputes team at Quastels LLP are adept at advising clients on all aspects of domicile, including when to issue or defend a domicile challenge.

Read More