Increase in Tax for Owners of Second Homes and Buy-to-let Properties
Following changes to the stamp duty land transaction tax (SDLT) from 1 April 2016, higher rates of SDLT will apply to the purchase of additional residential properties (such as second homes and buy-to-let properties). The changes followed a surprise announcement by the Chancellor at the last budget and were passed in the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2015-16.
If at the end of a purchase a buyer owns two or more residential properties, they may be liable for a higher rate of SDLT. One of the key factors in whether extra tax is due is whether they are replacing their main residence. If the buyer has disposed of a previous main residence within 36 months of the day of the transaction, the buyer will be considered to be replacing a main residence and no extra tax will be due.

Since 2010 there have been serious discussions in Parliament about the possibility of creating a British Bill of Rights. The topic of constitutional law does not often become something of popular discussion, but following the Scottish referendum of 2014 and the current EU renegotiations by David Cameron, potential reforms are currently at the centre of British politics.
Does the very concept of a judge being able to rule against a dead person’s last will and testament seem completely unacceptable to you? Perhaps you feel that this really is the final straw when it comes to our judiciary asserting their rulings in an area that really ought not to be touched? Upon first glance at this issue, I would have to admit to having felt very similar feelings myself; however, as with everything in life, especially law, things are never that straightforward, and there could well be circumstances at play that might just change your mind.
Anyone familiar with the intricacies of probate law was probably watching Joy Williams’ recent case for a half share in her deceased partner’s property with a rather sympathetic smirk stretching across their face. Little could they have known what the eventual outcome would be, especially when it turned out to be a ruling that was utterly unexpected by all.
This month we will be looking at recent developments in the world of Wills and Probate.
As I am currently in the middle of an in-depth course that deals with the law of obligations, I have to admit to feeling a little ashamed of myself for never having heard of Pigot’s Case – especially the rule and the impact it currently has on English contract law. I have gone through every last textbook connected to the course with a fine-tooth comb, and there is not a single mention of this case anywhere.
In light of a Family Justice Review that was undertaken, HM Courts and Tribunals Service have decided to create a new single Family Court in England and Wales. Effectively, this will pull this area of law away from the county courts and should mean that this division of the legal system is able to deal with relevant cases far more expeditiously and cost-effectively.
In recent months we have written about the major changes to how litigation clients are paying for legal advice. Legal services are now being unbundled so clients can “pick and mix” when they want to pay for legal advice and when they will do it themselves. This month we will consider how unbundled legal advice fits in with representation at court hearings. This type of representation is commonly called advocacy, and traditionally it is a service that has been provided by barristers or solicitors on behalf of their clients. Following changes to the scope of legal aid funding in April 2013, there has been widespread concern that individuals will be forced to represent themselves in court (known as litigants in person).
Can you believe that although we are well into the twenty-first century now, we find ourselves still considering an abhorrence of mankind that should have been eliminated back in the nineteenth century? Alas, it would appear that our species is always ready to prove its monstrous side in some way or other, and this is entirely why Theresa May (Home Secretary) and several other members of the House of Commons believed that modern slavery legislation was called for.
It has been a busy few months in the family courts, with a number of high-profile cases hitting the news. Previous articles are available in the monthly Journal archive from both September and October of this year, and we would encourage you to also read these to help you get to grips with this rapidly developing area of law.