Explanatory note

These Rules amend the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (S.I. 1987/2024) (“the 1987 Rules”) to: (a) allow online applications for probate to be made by an unrepresented applicant; (b) enable all applications for probate to be verified by a statement of truth (instead of an oath) and without the will having to be marked (signed by the applicant); (c) extend time limits in the caveat process, which give the person registering the caveat notice of any application for probate; (d) allow caveat applications and standing searches (which give notice of grants being issued) to be made electronically; (e) extend the powers of district probate registrars equivalent to those of district judges; and (f) make further provision for the issue of directions (instructions to the parties) in relation to hearings.

Rule 8 replaces the requirement under rule 8 of the 1987 Rules for the application for grant to be supported by an oath with a requirement for the contents of the application to be verified by a statement of truth.

Rule 10 removes the requirement in rule 10(1)(a) of the 1987 Rules for the will to be marked by the applicant or the applicant’s solicitor or probate practitioner.

Rules 2, 3, 4, 6. 8, 9, 11 and 12 make consequential amendments to rules 2, 4 ,4A, 5, 5A, 9, 27 and 36 of the 1987 Rules to reflect the changes to rules 8 and 10. Rule 7 removes rule 5B of the 1987 Rules, which permitted personal applications to be made by way of statement of truth at the invitation of the registry, as it is no longer needed following the general removal of the requirements for an application to be supported by an oath and for the will to be marked.

Rule 5 inserts new rule 5ZA before rule 5A of the 1987 Rules to permit personal applications for grant of probate to be made online without the need for an invitation from the registry, to make a procedure that was previously the subject of a pilot under rule 5A of the 1987 Rules to be made more widely available. Rule 5ZA of the 1987 Rules applies rule 5 of the 1987 Rules with modifications to applications made under the new rule.

Rule 6 amends rule 5A of the 1987 Rules to provide that this is now an alternative procedure to the online procedure provided for by rule 5ZA of the 1987 Rules. Rule 5A of the 1987 Rules permits online features to be tested by way of a pilot procedure. Applicants may participate in the pilot at the invitation of the registry. The retention of rule 5A of the 1987 Rules makes it possible for new online features to be tested in the future.

Rule 13 amends rule 43 of the 1987 Rules to permit applications for standing searches to be sent by electronic means as well as by post or by lodging the application in person, provided that the applicable fee is also paid electronically. Rule 14 makes the same change in relation to applications for a caveat to be entered or extended under rule 44 of the 1987 Rules.

Rule 14 also amends rule 44 of the 1987 Rules to enable certain directions in relation to caveats to be made by a registrar as well as by a district judge. Rule 15 makes the same change to rule 45 of the 1987 Rules (in relation to probate actions) and rule 16 makes the same change to rule 46 of the 1987 Rules (in relation to citations).

Finally, rule 14 amends rule 44 of the 1987 Rules to extend (from 8 to 14 days) the period for a caveator who has been served with a warning against a caveat to issue and serve a summons for directions under paragraph (6) or to enter an appearance in the nominated registry under paragraph (10), as the case may be.

Rule 17 amends rule 61 of the 1987 Rules, which gives power to a district judge or registrar to direct that an application must be made by summons. The amendment makes two changes. First, the district judge or registrar is empowered to give directions, which may be given before listing the application (which may make it possible for the application to be dealt with without needing to be listed at all) and may be subject to conditions and specify the consequences of failure to comply with the direction or a condition (which enables, for example, what is often referred to as an “unless order” to be made). Second, the district judge or registrar is empowered to hold the hearing of the application, or to take evidence, by telephone or any other direct method of oral communication (such as videoconferencing).

A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.