The Five Steps of Probate

Exterior office building at night

Dealing with the death of a family member or close friend is always difficult for those involved, and the last thing anyone wants to grapple with when grieving is a host of complex tax and legal procedures. It is no wonder that the probate process is a daunting prospect to those obliged to engage with it – the deceased’s ‘personal representatives’ (known as ‘executors’ when they are appointed in a will).

This is a simple guide to the probate process, broken down into five key steps:

Step One – The immediate post-death requirements

Setting aside the details of the funeral arrangements, when someone dies in the UK there are several steps that the personal representatives (PRs) need to take or in which they may have to involve themselves:

  • Registering the death and taking decisions about the body: the death must be registered with the UK authorities within five days. You will need to establish whether the deceased left any instructions (concerning, for example, burial or cremation, or organ donation) which would have a bearing on the funeral arrangements.
  • Preserving the estate: PRs are liable both to the deceased’s creditors and to their beneficiaries, so you will need to ensure as soon as possible that the deceased’s assets are adequately maintained and insured.
  • Trusts: If the deceased was a settlor or beneficiary of any trusts, you should notify the trustees of the death.

Points to consider – Who is entitled to the estate?

At this stage, it is essential to determine whether there is a will and, if there is, to check its terms and validity, and to establish the beneficiaries of the estate and broadly what each of them is entitled to receive.

Possible issues in an estate can range from the validity of the will itself (for example, if it has been incorrectly executed) to potential claims against the estate from people who relied on the deceased during their lifetime but who are not entitled to anything under the will.

The PRs should take legal advice to determine whether there may be any difficulties or risks in dealing with the estate.

Step Two – Valuing the estate

Once the initial steps have been completed, usually after the funeral has taken place, the PRs need to make enquiries into the deceased’s assets and liabilities in order to obtain accurate figures for the HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) inheritance tax (“IHT”) return.

Depending on the assets involved, formal market valuations may be needed, or it may simply be a case of writing to the relevant asset holder (e.g. a bank or investment manager) to obtain the information required. Most assets will be released to the PRs only on production of the grant of probate later in the administration, although many banks will release funds to pay IHT.

Any liabilities the deceased had during their lifetime, such as debts, overdrafts and outstanding tax liabilities, must also be recorded in the IHT return and settled when funds are available.

If the PRs are not sure whether they have identified all the deceased’s assets and liabilities, a financial asset search can be conducted.

Points to consider – Advertising for unknown creditors

A common concern at this stage is whether the deceased had any liabilities of which the PRs are unaware. It is essential for PRs to appreciate that they are personally liable to the deceased’s creditors, even after the estate has been distributed. However, the PRs can protect themselves from personal liability by placing creditor notices (also known as “Trustee Act Notices”) in the London Gazette and a newspaper local to the deceased’s home.

Step Three – Preparing the IHT Return

Once the value of the assets and liabilities has been ascertained, the IHT position must be reported to provide HMRC with details of the estate’s value. The nature of the report depends on the value and composition of the estate.  If an informal report can be made, it is submitted as part of the grant application process itself, although is important to appreciate that even for estates where no tax is due, the PRs may need to submit a full IHT return (for example, if the estate is over £3m).  If the informal report is not appropriate for the estate, the PRs need to submit the full IHT return; the IHT400.  The PRs also need to collate details of all gifts made by the deceased within seven years of their death and ensure that they also are reported in the IHT return .

A calculation of the IHT must be prepared. The PRs are responsible for settling any IHT arising on assets owned by the deceased at the date of his death. If the deceased made gifts during their lifetime in excess of their nil rate band (£325,000), these can also become subject to IHT as a result of the death. The recipients of the gifts are prima facie responsible for the IHT, albeit the will typically stipulates that it should be paid from the estate.

The IHT is due by the end of the sixth month after the deceased’s death, after which interest starts to run. For certain assets (such as property or unlisted shareholdings) there is the option to pay IHT in instalments over ten years or (if earlier) until the asset is sold, with interest running on the outstanding balance until it is settled.

The IHT400 is submitted to HMRC and, on payment of the IHT due, HMRC issue a code to the PRs or their solicitors which enables them to proceed with the grant application.  (No code is required in order to make the application for an estate requiring only an informal report.) 

Points to consider – Assets discovered after submission of the IHT return, and varying the estate

There is always a chance that assets may be found after an IHT return has been submitted, in which case a corrective IHT form must be filed and any additional IHT (and interest) paid promptly.

It may be that for tax or personal reasons, beneficiaries would like to redirect assets that would otherwise come to them under the will. This should be done within two years of the death through a formal deed of variation. The deed may affect the tax payable on the estate, and therefore may need to be taken into account when preparing the IHT return and calculations.

Step Four – Applying for the Grant

For estates requiring a full IHT account, the grant application can be prepared and submitted only on receipt of the HMRC code. 

The grant is the document which confirms the PRs’ authority to deal with the deceased’s UK assets, enabling them to collect the assets, pay liabilities, and distribute the balance according to the terms of the deceased’s will (or intestacy rules in the absence of a will).

The probate court issues different types of grants, the main types being a grant of probate (if the deceased had a will), and a grant of letters of administration (if the deceased died intestate, i.e. without a will).

Different timescales apply depending on the complexity of the grant required, and some applications currently need to be made online while others must be submitted on paper.  Irrespective of the mode of application, the original will (and any codicils) must be sent to the probate registry when the grant application is made and will be kept by the court.  Some grants are issued within a fortnight, but sometimes the process can take several weeks.

Points to consider – Reservation and Renunciation

Some executors named in a will may not want to take on the responsibility of dealing with the estate, and there is no obligation (unless they have already ‘intermeddled’, i.e. presented themselves as being an executor or taken active steps in the administration of the estate) for them to do so. Executors who wish to step aside have two choices: to reserve their power to act as an executor, or renounce the position entirely.

If an executor has power reserved to them, they will not be required to act. However, they could make their own separate application for a second grant at any point in the future and would then become an acting executor (if, for example, their involvement was required because the first executor became unable to act for some reason).

If an executor chooses to renounce, they are giving up the role of executor entirely. They cannot reverse the decision if they later change their mind.

Step Five – Post-Grant Estate Administration

Once the grant has been issued by the Probate Registry, the PRs have the authority to call in the deceased’s assets. The PRs will then need to pay off all debts before proceeding to satisfy any bequests (that is, gifts of particular items such as paintings or jewellery) and pecuniary legacies (cash gifts). PRs need to keep estate accounts to document the money received, assets transferred to beneficiaries and amounts paid out of the estate. The accounts will also confirm each beneficiary’s entitlement and can help the PRs to decide whether it is appropriate to make an interim distribution before the tax liabilities have been conclusively determined.

Before finalising the estate, the PRs will need to complete estate tax returns, reporting any income and capital gains arising during the administration period.

The final distributions can then be made, either through distributing cash (after collecting and selling estate assets), or by transferring estate assets (e.g. shares) directly to the beneficiaries.

Points to consider – Post-Grant Estate Planning

The post-grant administration period is an opportune moment for the beneficiaries to consider their own estate planning, particularly if they are receiving a valuable inheritance.

How we can help

Although each estate proceeds through the same stages, no two unfold in the same way.  Particularly in cases involving unusual assets or property held outside the UK, our extensive technical knowledge serves to ensure that the administration proceeds in an orderly way and that the relevant tax authorities are dealt with appropriately, meaning that the PRs can be content that they have discharged their duties properly.

Forsters’ private client and probate specialists have a wide range of experience with both UK-based estates and foreign estates involving UK assets, so are able to deal with the most complex matters. We can take on the practical burden of the difficult and time-consuming estate administration process, explaining matters in plain English whilst ensuring that clients receive the support they need during a period which is often one of the most difficult times of their lives.

Guy Abrahams is a Partner and Naomi McLean is a Senior Associate. 

Settled Status simplified – but don’t rely on automatic approval

While the UK Government recently announced broad reforms to tighten the country’s immigration and nationality laws in its White Paper published on 12 May 2025, the legal protections for EU citizens and their family members have quietly become even more generous, with changes effective since 16 July 2025.

Appendix EU – the legislation forming the legal framework of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) has long been considered one of the most generous parts of UK immigration law. Since Brexit, it has undergone several changes, each aimed at improving and expanding the rights of EU citizens and their families.

Despite already being one of the most flexible and inclusive immigration routes in the UK, Appendix EU continues to evolve, offering even greater benefits to those it protects.

Existing benefits of the EUSS:

  • Children under 21 are automatically considered dependent.
  • EEA citizens may bring their spouses, unmarried partners, overage dependents (e.g. parents), and stepchildren to the UK.
  • Pre-Settled and Settled Status are not lost unless there is a continuous absence from the UK of more than five years (or four years for Swiss nationals).
  • Settled Status holders living outside the UK can preserve their status by making just one return to the UK during each five-year period.
  • Applications are free of charge and typically processed much faster than most other UK immigration routes.
  • Spousal reunification rules are more relaxed for marriages and relationships that began before Brexit.

Changes from 16 July 2025:

On 24 June 2025, the Home Office announced a significant change to how applicants can qualify for Settled Status, effective from 16 July 2025.

Previously, to qualify for Settled Status applicants needed to have lived continuously in the UK for five years, with allowed absences of up to six months in any 12-month period (or a single absence of up to 12 months for exceptional reasons such as serious illness, study, or work).

Under the new rules, applicants with Pre-Settled Status can now qualify for Settled Status if they have spent at least 30 months (2.5 years) in the UK during the most recent 60-month (5-year) period prior to applying.

This is a significant and generous change, particularly beneficial for:

  • Applicants unaware of the strict residence requirements
  • Individuals who experienced extended absences from the UK due to COVID-19 or personal circumstances.

However, it is important to note that this new provision does not apply to individuals who have already lost their Pre-Settled Status due to prolonged absences. Specifically, those who were absent from the UK for two continuous years and lost their status under the rules in place before 24 May 2024 will not benefit from this change.

Don’t rely on automatic Settled Status

The Home Office has previously stated that Settled Status will be granted automatically to eligible individuals whose UK residency can be verified through HMRC records. However, this process is not always reliable, particularly for those without a regular UK employment history or have spent significant time outside the UK.   

We have seen numerous cases where individuals expected to receive Settled Status automatically but were instead required to submit a manual application. Therefore, we strongly recommend submitting a formal application for Settled Status rather than waiting for it to be granted automatically.

How we can help

Our experienced immigration team regularly supports EU nationals and their families with tailored immigration advice and securing successful outcomes. If your circumstances are more complex, we can help you build a clear and compelling case, ensuring the Home Office has the documentation it needs to grant Settled Status.

Get in touch with us today to discuss how we can support you make the most of these latest developments.

Settled Status simplified

Download this briefing as a PDF Contact us

Fountain pen

Are upwards only rent reviews going down? 

Up for debate

Hidden in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (the Bill), published on 10 July 2025, is a proposal to prohibit upwards only rent reviews in commercial leases. This was included in the Bill without prior consultation with the real estate industry and has understandably sparked a flurry of opinions. Here we set out what is being proposed, and what we think the likely effects could be.

People walking along a commercial street in the rain

Download the briefing note

Find out what leases will be caught by the Bill, what rent review provisions will be impacted and much more.

Download our PDF briefing note

What leases will be caught by the Bill?

The proposed ban on upwards only rent reviews will only apply to leases held by tenants who occupy the premises for business purposes (i.e. to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies). These leases will be caught whether or not they are contracted out of the 1954 Act. The provisions will not have retrospective effect and so will not affect any leases that have been entered into before the Bill comes into force, nor any leases which are entered into pursuant to an agreement for lease which has been dated before the ban. It will however apply to any renewal leases post the Bill coming into force, whether a statutory or independent renewal. Any extension to a lease would also bring it within the remit of the Bill, as this would be treated as a new lease.

What rent review provisions will be impacted?

The Bill would ban upwards only rent reviews in any form, whether by reference to open market rent, turnover or indexation/inflation. The revised rent would have to be able to go up or down. It is not yet clear whether rent collars will be permitted, as the guidance notes to the Bill state that the Bill “may include exceptions to allow for caps and collars to be used”.

The ban will only apply where the new rent is undetermined on the date the lease is entered into. This means that it will not affect stepped rents, where the rent increases have already been pre-agreed and set out in the lease.

Can landlords get around the provisions?

In short, no. The draft legislation contains robust anti-avoidance provisions. The Bill covers off the scenario whereby a landlord could avoid triggering a rent review by simply not serving a rent review notice on the tenant. In those circumstances, tenants can serve their own notices to trigger the rent review process.

The Bill also prohibits the use of a “put option” whereby the landlord can require the tenant to take a renewal lease at the higher of market rent and passing rent, rather than having a rent review. Agreements for the tenant to make a payment in respect of any difference between the existing and new rent following rent review are also void pursuant to the Bill.

Why has the government proposed this ban?

The government is seeking to address the high number of vacancies that we are seeing on high streets and aims to support small retail businesses by ensuring that their rents aren’t going up during difficult economic times. A ban on upwards only rent review has been talked about by previous governments, and across the globe most jurisdictions do not have upwards only rent reviews (for example, Ireland abolished them in 2010). The idea is that by ending upwards only rent reviews, commercial rents will more accurately reflect market conditions, which will help to reduce retail tenant insolvencies and vacant units on high streets.

Our thoughts on the proposals

One immediately obvious aspect of the Bill is that it is not limited to retail tenancies. It applies to all commercial tenancies where tenants are in occupation which includes, amongst others, office and industrial tenants and energy infrastructure leases – not sectors the government is concerned about addressing in terms of vacancies.

Also, many retail leases are granted for shorter terms of five years or less and therefore do not contain rent review provisions. This means that the sector the government is seeking to help is probably the one least likely to benefit from this ban. There are larger issues at play which impact the retail sector such as high business rates and a move from consumers towards online shopping. Downwards rent reviews aren’t going to address these economic pressures for retailers.

In the short term, abolition of upwards only rent reviews is likely to lead to a loss in confidence from investors and could slow down and destabilise an already challenging market. Lenders want certainly around their return on investment, and a move away from upwards only rent reviews could lead to reduced investment and less commercial property becoming available. This could stifle economic growth as lenders and investors have to price in the risk of rental income going down, and could be a cause of concern for pension funds.

We could see lower quality real estate stock being most affected by the ban, as landlords may be less willing to invest in stock which is already riskier in terms of rental income. Landlords could also push for higher starting rents to try to maintain a suitable income stream throughout the lease term, although of course tenants may resist this.

How could lease terms change as a result?

Longer term, an abolition of upwards only rent review could lead to a change in lease structures.

  • Increase in index linked rent review and turnover rents – We could see an increase in these being used rather than the more traditional open market rent review model, provided always that the rent can go down if turnover or inflation fall.
  • More frequent reviews – Rent reviews could take place more frequently than the usual five year model to allow landlords to regularly adjust their rent in line with the market. This is a more common practice across Europe.
  • Shorter lease terms – As already mentioned, many retail leases already have terms of less than five years, but if the Bill comes into force this could become the norm for other commercial leases as landlords try to avoid the effects of a possible downward review.
  • Landlord break clauses – Another possibility is for landlords to grant leases without security of tenure, and to include landlord only break rights to allow for their exit should the rent decrease.
  • Use of stepped rents – Landlords could also opt for stepped rents maintained over longer periods in order to provide more certainty over the rental stream.

All of these options will of course depend on the bargaining power of the parties and the overall market conditions.

What are the next steps?

The Bill will need to go through several readings in Parliament and then on to committee review before it can become law, so we would expect it to be thoroughly interrogated. There are already practical issues apparent with the proposed legislation. For example, as the ban is intended to only apply to tenancies where the business tenant is in occupation, what will happen where the tenant has underlet the whole of its premises? In that scenario it would seem that the ban will apply only to the underlease and not to the tenant’s lease, which could result in the tenant paying more rent following a rent review than its undertenant is paying. The fact that the Bill doesn’t have retrospective effect also means that there could be a discrepancy where underleases are granted post the ban coming into force – the lease will still have an upwards only rent review, but the underlease will be subject to an upwards or downwards review. These aspects of the Bill will need to be carefully considered. We will be closely monitoring the progress of the Bill and will keep you updated.

This is an opportunity for representatives of the real estate sector to collaborate with the government to ensure that whatever is decided in relation to rent reviews is for the benefit of the property industry as a whole. Commercial real estate bodies such as the British Property Federation (BPF) are currently formulating responses to the government amidst their concerns that the impact on the property market could be immense, and we will be feeding into these discussions. Concerned landlords and investors should take the opportunity to engage with industry bodies such as the BPF to make sure their views are represented.

Having upwards and downwards rent reviews does work in other countries so this model can succeed, but it needs to be carefully considered and made in consultation with the wider property industry to ensure that there aren’t any unintended economic consequences. Whether or not upwards only rent reviews end up being prohibited, this is a chance for the commercial real estate sector to suggest options to help revive our high streets and to shape the future of leasing, but it’s essential that the government listens to these views for any changes to succeed.

Want to know more?

Our Commercial real estate team can help

Meet our team

Forsters secures exceptional results in Chambers High Net Worth 2025

Chambers High Net Worth

Strong recognition across the board, including top-tier listing in new Landed Estates category

The 2025 edition of Chambers and Partners’ High Net Worth guide was published today, and the breadth and depth of Forsters’ expertise continues to be reflected throughout the rankings.

The guide, which ranks the leading professional advisors to the Private Wealth market based on extensive market research, recognises Forsters’ combination of established expertise, exceptional client care and up-and-coming talent, with clients saying: “Forsters has very high-calibre partners and excellent associates, with no weak links. They are resolute in pursuing their clients’ best interests while still being pleasant to deal with.” and “The team at Forsters have the ability to distil issues for clients. They are technically excellent, but it is their delivery and distilling of messages to clients which makes them a cut above.”

Forsters was ranked in six practices areas, with Band 1 listings for:

And Band 2 listings for:

Overall, we received 31 individual rankings, with highlights including:

Band 1

In the specialist Spotlight tables, Joanne Edwards was selected for the Family/Matrimonial: Mediators – UK category, while Nicholas Jacob and Daniel Ugur were named in the Foreign expert for Singapore Spotlight.

New and elevated individual rankings:

Mary Jacobsen
Media contact

Mary Jacobsen

View profile

Your essential guide to UK Immigration reforms now in place

Immigration Reforms Guide

The UK government’s Statement of Changes, effective from 22 July 2025, introduces substantial reforms across several immigration routes, with particular focus on the Skilled Worker route.

These immediate adjustments align with the government’s broader strategy to reduce net migration, as outlined in the Immigration White Paper published in May.

Skills threshold

  • The minimum skill level for eligible occupations under the Skilled Worker route has been raised. Job roles will need to be at least degree level, meaning positions will now require bachelor’s degree or equivalent. This change effectively removes a significant number of roles that no longer qualify for sponsorship.
  • As a result, approximately 180 eligible occupations have been excluded from the route, potentially having a significant impact on employers seeking to sponsor migrant workers for roles below degree level.
  • However, there is some flexibility. Applicants who are already in the system or who have a pending successful application can still be sponsored in lower-skilled occupations after the changes take effect.

Salary thresholds

Skilled worker

  • From 22 July, the general salary threshold for a Skilled Worker application has increased to £41,700.00 (previously £38,700.00).

Discounted rates are available for:

  • PhD roles: £37,500.00.
  • STEM PhDs, new entrants, and roles on the Immigration Salary List: £33,400.00.

Transitional provisions

  • For those granted Skilled Worker permission before 4 April 2024, the general salary threshold will be £31,300.00.
  • Discounted salary thresholds will apply as follows:
    • PhD holders: £23,200.00.
    • STEM PhDs, new entrants, and those listed in the Immigration Salary List: £25,000.00.

Global Business Mobility

  • The salary threshold for the Global Business Mobility route has increased to £52,500.00 (previously £48,500.00).
  • It is crucial to note that the gross annual salary offered must meet or exceed either the general salary threshold or the specific going rate for the role, whichever is higher. The UK government plans to review these thresholds annually using data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE).

End-of-year immigration updates

Several other significant immigration changes are expected before the end of 2025, including:

  • A 32% increase in the Immigration Skills Charge, which will raise long-term sponsorship costs.
  • Stricter English language requirements for both primary applicants and dependants.
  • A new family immigration policy introducing tighter relationship criteria, financial thresholds, and language requirements.

Employer’s actions

  • Re-evaluate skill levels and job eligibility: Verify that all sponsored positions meet the updated RQF Level 6 (degree-level) requirements.
  • Adjust salary thresholds: Update contracts, budgets, and payroll systems to reflect the new salary levels starting 22 July. Note that transitional arrangements will not apply to these salary changes.
  • Prepare for transitional measures: Assess your workforce to identify employees impacted by transitional rules, ensuring that there are no disruptions to visa status.
  • Revise recruitment and workforce plans: The new Temporary Shortage List will be temporary and conditional. Employers will be expected to focus more on local recruitment. It’s also a good time to review and strengthen training and reskilling programs to align with government priorities and future sponsorship needs.
  • Inform your employees: Make sure your current sponsored workers are informed of the upcoming changes and how these could affect their immigration status.

If you need personalized immigration advice, our team of experts is here to support you. We assist both employers and individuals across the full spectrum of immigration matters, providing practical, sensitive guidance to ensure a smooth and efficient process. Contact one of our team members to discuss how these changes may affect you or your workforce.

Bird in flight

UK Immigration reforms now in place

Your essential guide to the UK government’s Statement of Changes, effective from 22 July 2025.

Download this briefing as a PDF

Prenups, Planning, and the Price of Divorce: Lessons from Standish

Three cyclists ride along a paved road at sunset, surrounded by grassy fields and distant hills under a vibrant sky.

On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, upholding the largest ever reduction in a financial award on divorce, from £45 million to £25 million. The outcome reinforces the value of taking early legal advice to effectively combine strategic financial planning, careful asset structuring, and well-drafted nuptial agreements for high-net-worth individuals seeking to safeguard pre-marital, gifted, or inherited assets.

Background – transfer of investments

The appeal centred on a portfolio of investments (“the 2017 Assets”), which the husband transferred from his sole name into the wife’s sole name in 2017 as part of a tax planning scheme. The husband intended the wife to place the 2017 Assets in discretionary trusts for the children to avoid inheritance tax. The wife never set up the trusts, and continued to hold the 2017 Assets in her sole name. The parties’ marriage broke down in 2020. By the time of the financial proceedings in 2022, the 2017 Assets were worth approximately £80 million.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal decided the lower court judge had incorrectly made the transfer of title from the husband to the wife the determinative factor when assessing the character of the 2017 Assets, and that the source of the assets, rather than title, was the vital factor. The transfer did not change the character of the assets from property belonging to the husband (“non-matrimonial property”) to “matrimonial property”, described by the Supreme Court as “the fruits of the marriage partnership” or “product of the parties’ common endeavour”, which could be shared between the spouses.

Wife’s appeal to the Supreme Court

The wife argued that the Court of Appeal had placed too much weight on the husband being the primary source of the 2017 Assets. She contended that the transfer was effectively a gift to her.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the majority of the 2017 Assets transferred during the marriage remained the husband’s own property (non-matrimonial property) that did not need to be shared between the spouses.

The Supreme Court clarified that only matrimonial property is subject to sharing. Equal sharing of matrimonial property is the appropriate and principled starting position, though this is subject to justified departures.

Non-matrimonial property cannot be shared, but it can be accessed to meet a party’s needs or to compensate a spouse who has “given up valuable opportunities by marrying”.

Source of wealth is key

Most significantly, the Supreme Court stressed that who holds the title to property does not determine whether that property is matrimonial property that can be shared, or non-matrimonial property. Rather, it is the source of wealth which is key: assets acquired before marriage or through inheritance or gift remain a party’s non-matrimonial property unless transformed or “matrimonialised” into matrimonial property over time. How would that transformation or “matrimonialisation” occur? The answer comes at paragraph 52:

“matrimonialisation rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared”.

Shared intention = recipe for transformation

Source isn’t everything – the key ingredients are source combined with the parties’ shared intention. Shared intention is deduced from looking at how parties have been dealing with the assets over time – a sufficiently long period of time for such treatment to be regarded as settled. For example, have they used an inheritance to purchase a holiday property where the whole family has been staying for the last five summers? If so, that portion of the inheritance has probably been transformed into matrimonial property and falls to be shared. In Standish, the husband’s intention was always that the transfer to the wife was to mitigate IHT and benefit the children. His intention was not to benefit the wife, so matrimonialisation was not achieved, as the parties had no shared intention for any period of time, that the assets should become matrimonial property. 

Moving forward, it will be essential to consider the full history of the asset in question to work out where the asset originated, how each party has been making use of that asset over time, and what this reveals of their intention. Assumptions cannot be made based on legal ownership and source alone.

Shared intention: fairer but less certain

The emphasis on intention brings to mind the well-known equitable maxim He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. As always in family law, fairness is fundamental. Would it have been fair here if the wife had benefitted from the transfer, knowing it had been effected to save tax and benefit the children? While “shared intention” taking centre stage seems fairer, it is less clear-cut and may well lead to parties litigating over who said what.

High-net-worth individuals will have to think about how to evidence their intention towards an asset and be ready to explain how their conduct over time relates to how that asset should be characterised. Introducing a subjective element like “shared intention” will generate more uncertainty than focussing purely on source, and there will be more scope for arguments over intention going forward.

What should HNW individuals do to avoid assets changing character?

What can be done to lessen that uncertainty? Maintain clear records of asset ownership, financial transactions, and clearly document the purpose of any intra-marital transfers. Keep your own property separate where you want to keep it characterised as non-matrimonial property, and ensure you are not using it in a way that could give rise to a shared intention for it to become matrimonial property – unless that is your objective! Examples could include using non-matrimonial assets to fund joint expenses or to make improvements to a family home.

Also be aware that transferring assets to your spouse or into joint names will not automatically transform those assets into matrimonial property, unless your intention to share the asset has been clearly recorded. Documentation can be vital in demonstrating the intended treatment of assets and preventing future disputes.

A boost to nuptial agreements

Entering into a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement which clearly defines ownership and treatment of assets will greatly reduce uncertainty about the way assets are categorised. Following this judgment, it will be more difficult to invade non-matrimonial property, which should be kept in mind when agreeing definitions in nuptial agreements and assessing what may be “fair” in the future. Nuptial agreements can help to protect non-matrimonial assets and, although not legally binding, they offer a degree of certainty as to how the court would determine the division of assets should your relationship break down.

Schemes to mitigate tax

Perhaps most importantly for tax and estate planning, the judgment confirms that inter-spousal transfers will not automatically convert non-matrimonial property into matrimonial property, particularly if the purpose is tax planning. At paragraph 62, the Supreme Court states: “in the context of an intended scheme to mitigate the impact of inheritance tax, the intention is simply to save tax.” In such circumstances, compelling evidence will be required to show that the parties have treated the asset as shared between them.

Fundamentally, the decision highlights how wealth planning should always be considered from a holistic perspective – with family and private client teams collaborating early on. Nuptial agreements, hand in hand with tax and estate planning measures, can bring clarity for high-net-worth individuals and reduce uncertainty in the event of future relationship breakdown. When working towards effective asset preservation, the enduring truth remains; early legal advice can help prevent many later wranglings.

“Standish has provided welcome clarity. The Supreme Court has stated that non-matrimonial property can never be shared on divorce, except to meet needs or compensation. The Supreme Court has also clarified the circumstances in which non-matrimonial property can become “matrimonialised”. This is helpful, as it enables us to advise clients how to avoid such a situation and to draft nuptial agreements to provide maximum protection” – Simon Blain, Partner.

Here at Forsters, our distinguished team of family law and wealth and estate planning specialists work in close collaboration to deliver a seamless, discreet, and first-class service to high-net-worth individuals and families. Our depth of expertise and commitment to excellence provide our clients with bespoke solutions of the highest standard.

Lifecycle of a business – Pricing the deal

Exterior of abstract office building

Setting up and running your own business is an amazing achievement. It requires vision, creativity, motivation and stamina. On occasion, it can even bring you fame, riches and fortune. But it can also result in reams of paperwork and cause sleepless nights. And as someone once said to me about children “It doesn’t get easier, it just changes”, so the same can be said for your business throughout its lifecycle. From setting up to exit, it will force you to consider issues that you might not previously have known anything about and it will need you to make many decisions, sometimes very quickly. What it certainly is not is mundane.

With this in mind, the corporate team at Forsters, together with some of our specialist colleagues, has written a series of articles about the various issues and some of the key points that it may help you to know about at each stage of a business’s life. Not all of these will be relevant to you or your business endeavours, but we hope that you will find at least some of these guides interesting and useful, whether you just have the glimmer of an idea, are a start-up, a well-established enterprise or are considering your exit options. Do feel free to drop us a line or pick up the phone if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised further.

We’ve considered the main aspects of the lifecycle of a business from the beginning and you now want to sell….

Pricing the deal

The price is the fundamental term of any M&A transaction. A seller will be keen on price certainty, whereas a buyer will often want to know they’re getting value for money. In addition, how the price is structured may depend on how aligned the parties are on the headline value and whether the buyer is keen to retain, for example, owner managers in the longer term.

This article focuses on price and value certainty by considering the key features of completion accounts and locked box pricing mechanisms. Deferred payment structures and earn-outs (often used to allow for any valuation gap to be bridged based on future performance or to otherwise incentivise retention of key individuals during a post-closing integration period) are outside the scope of this article.

Completion accounts

In a completion accounts deal, the sale agreement will typically provide for an initial purchase price payment to be made on closing (based on estimated numbers), with a post-closing adjustment made in accordance with an agreed ‘equity bridge’, that is, the adjustments to the enterprise value / headline price to be made to reach the ‘equity value’, being the value available to the target group’s shareholders. 

The equity bridge will often be a cash free debt free adjustment, with a working capital adjustment, or a net assets adjustment (the latter commonly seen, for example, in corporate real estate transactions).

Looking at a cash/debt/working capital adjustment, this would customarily look like:

Running total
1Enterprise Value£50m£50m
2MinusDebt£10m£40m
3PlusCash£5m£45m
4 – Option APlusThe amount by which actual working capital exceeds the target working capital£1m£46m
4 – Option BMinusThe amount by which actual working capital is than target working capitalN/A in example£46m

There may be other fixed transaction specific adjustments too.

With this structure, the economic risk passes to the buyer on closing, and there is less price certainty for a seller due to the post-closing adjustment, particularly on a conditional deal. This aspect of completion accounts is unappealing for sellers, particularly those with stakeholders such as private equity investors.

The parties will have to negotiate what should form each element of the closing accounts; for example, is there any restricted cash which the business cannot utilise? and, if so, is this to be excluded from any definition of ‘cash’?

A buyer should always consider whether it makes sense to pay cash for cash given stamp taxes or whether they should seek for the sellers to carry out a cash sweep to an agreed level pre-closing.

Locked box

In contrast, a locked box mechanism involves the parties agreeing the price before signing, requiring detailed analysis of the equity bridge and the underlying financial accounts – the locked box accounts – before signing. There is then no post-closing adjustment. Economic risk therefore passes on the locked box accounts date and the sale agreement should contain provisions to prohibit and allow pound for pound claims if there is ‘leakage’ of value from the target group to the sellers, unless such leakage is ‘permitted leakage’.

Leakage would often include a seller receiving dividends, management charges or supervisory fees (or similar) and transaction bonuses, as well as, for example, assets transferring to the seller, guarantees being provided in favour of a seller by the target, forgiving debt, or the target suffering tax in relation to any such item. Transaction costs payable by the target should also be factored in as it is for the benefit of the seller indirectly.

Permitted leakage is amounts which are allowed to go to the sellers, either due to a specific agreement (for example, for the target to pay a certain amount of advisory fees (which a buyer will likely want capped)) or which are made in the ordinary course of business, such as, the payment of employees’ salaries.

In addition to the locked box price, sellers of profitable businesses will seek compensation for the period from the locked box date to closing, to reflect that they have been running the business. This is the ‘value accrual’ or ‘profit ticker’.

Which to choose?

There are pros and cons of both mechanisms, and we have summarised some of these below.  We often see completion accounts used in a buyer driven market (other than in an auction process).

Completion accounts

ProsCons
Completion accounts provide greater value certainty, as they calculate the agreed metrics at closing. This is particularly appealing for a buyer.There is less price certainty as the final price is calculated post-closing.
To some extent, the completion adjustment builds in a financial value remedy; a buyer is less reliant on financial indemnities and warranties.Completion accounts require more legal drafting, and the negotiation of various accounting policies necessitates legal and financial advice before closing, with further input afterwards during the ‘true up’ adjustment process.

Locked box

ProsCons
Locked box provides for price certainty.As the price is fixed, the value may move if performance improves or falls between the date of the locked box accounts and closing.
There should be less scope for disagreements when it comes to the price as all the items that form the price are considered and agreed in advance.A buyer will need to be sure of its financial due diligence, as it will not have the level of value certainty provided by a completion accounts mechanism.

Disclaimer

This note reflects the law as at 15 July 2025. The circumstances of each case vary and this note should not be relied upon in place of specific legal advice.

Daniel Bryan
Author

Daniel Bryan

View profile

Dealing with access issues in Infrastructure Projects

A land manager’s perspective

There is an undeniable friction between landowners and occupiers of land and infrastructure providers, promoters and developers.

Much is being discussed at government policy level in an attempt to alleviate this friction, with provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill designed to ‘streamline’ the process and the new Electricity Infrastructure Code of Practice May 2025 a hopeful guide designed to make the process better.

What does this actually mean for landowners? And how can landowners best take control of the process for themselves?

Crop field with pylon

Dealing with access issues in Infrastructure Projects

What does this actually mean for landowners?

Download our PDF factsheet

Often, no matter how much influence is applied from a policy perspective, human behaviour and agendas will so often dominate the relationship. Interference with private property rights is, quite understandably, one of the most emotive topics and we can’t help but feel that this aspect too often gets forgotten.

When the need arises for new infrastructure (here we are focusing on electricity) the likelihood is that landowners will have got wind of a project on the horizon. The next thing very often will be a letter from an ‘Acquiring Authority’ followed swiftly by proposed draft licences and notices requesting or, in some cases, demanding access for intrusive and non-intrusive surveys. And so it begins.

Perhaps at this juncture it is important to point out that we are still dealing with the ultimate use of Compulsory Purchase Powers. They are what they say on the tin.

What does the law say?

  • Section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 gives power to an ‘Acquiring Authority’ to access required for a project for the purpose of carrying out surveys.
  • The section 172 procedure is often used as an alternative to the older section 53 Planning Act 2008 power, which requires approval from the Secretary of State.
  • Guidance emphasises that the acquiring authority MUST use reasonable endeavours to obtain access voluntarily, before serving a section 172 Notice.
  • An acquiring authority (for the purposes of the cheaper and easier section 172 power) is defined as “…a person who could be authorised to acquire compulsorily the land to which the proposal…relates (regardless of whether the proposal is to acquire an interest in or a right over the land or to take temporary possession of it)”. There are often very real concerns about whether person exercising the power actually qualifies as an acquiring authority.
  • The power gives the acquiring authority very broad rights to enter and survey in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or right over land. This includes searching, boring, excavating/leaving apparatus/taking samples/aerial survey/any other activities required to comply with directives on environmental impact of development and/or on natural habitats on flora/fauna.
  • A section 172 Notice must be served on owners AND occupiers at least 14 days’ notice before the first day of access.
  • Notice must contain an explanation of the landowners rights of compensation for any damage caused and, if intrusive, the details of what they intend to do.
  • If a landowner or occupier has physically prevented access, an acquiring authority can apply for a warrant from the Magistrates Court authorising use of force if a person has prevented or is likely to prevent access, and it is reasonable to use force.
  • A warrant will be limited to that which is reasonably necessary, and the warrant has to specify the number of occasions it is to be used. Note that time periods for access under a Warrant can still be extensive. Warrants can often come with a costs order against a landowner and the potential for a £1,000 fine upon conviction if access is still refused.

What happens in practice?

The above summarises what is provided for under statute and associated guidance. The obligations on both sides rest heavily on ‘reasonableness’. And again; human behaviour.

What actually happens can be very different. More often than not, letters will be sent requesting access. Letters will contain a draft licence which landowners are asked to sign there and then. If the licence is not signed in its un-negotiated and un-amended form, the implication will be that the acquiring authority will rely on its section 72 powers for access anyway. These letters will be swiftly followed up by section 172 notices.

Attempts to negotiate the Access Licence are costly and in circumstances where they are attempted, will often fall on the deaf ears of the developer and no progress will be made.

Notices will be followed up with, strictly speaking, unauthorised survey visits by unknown surveying contractors within the 14 day notice period and at times that could be deemed reasonable and unreasonable in equal measure.

It is understandable why the process so often gets of to a dreadful start.

What can landowners do?

First and foremost, landowners should remember that engagement is NOT approval.

In the first instance, the Access for Surveys process should allow for landowners and occupiers to seek professional advice from agents and lawyers. This cost should be met by the acquiring authority.

How to deal with costs

In the case of energy project developments, very often the acquiring authority will be an SPV with no money, more likely debt. This is normal.
What is also normal is for an acquiring authority to pay landowners reasonable costs for negotiations for an Access Licence. To achieve this, landowners should request this by way of funds on account or by way of a solicitors undertaking (which is effectively a legally binding promise).

What can you get out of the access arrangements

The costs provided for above should be sought from the developer at the outset and landowners would be well advised to focus on engaging their professional advisors to push hard in negotiations over access arrangements.

Access requirements are likely to be bespoke to each landowner and occupier and there is scope to agree the timings, notice periods and importantly, provision for damages and compensations and imposing an appropriate duty of care and regulations and rules around access. In summary, more control.

And if these attempts fail?

The sanctions and implications for each party where a party has failed to act ‘reasonably’ is far from even, in our view.

If a landowner has reacted to the inevitable fear of uncertainty of major upheaval on its land, it will be threatened with costs orders, warrants and unknown contractors surveying its land at unreasonable hours. It will be quickly deemed an unreasonable NIMBY or BANANA (to coin a new expression, build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything). And unfortunately, the lack of engagement at the outset is more likely to result in the use and exercise of CPO powers to deliver the ultimate infrastructure project with little or no input from the landowner or occupier. If ever there was a missed opportunity for engagement with the very individuals who know and understand the land, here it is.

On the other hand, if a developer flies close to the line of ‘reasonableness’, what will be the consequences?

In the first instance, most likely delay. A delay in getting on to do surveys, bad surveys and missed surveying windows. And this will cost the developer. Ironically, the cost of this could have been better applied to supporting and facilitating the positive engagement and onboarding of landowners. And later down the line, a slapped wrist at a planning enquiry?
But in reality, poor conduct by a developer is not always enough to change the overall outcome.

What can landowners do?

It is all too easy to tell landowners to ‘engage’. What does that even mean when in most instances, it is impossible?

We have looked at the balance of power in the section above and the implications of this for landowners and developers. One example of a distressed landowner being unfairly treated by the process is, unfortunately, unlikely to tip the balance.

But similar examples from all landowners affected? Much more powerful. And whilst this may not change the ultimate decision, the reputational and financial implications for a developer will be real to them and their funders. Could this instigate behavioural change? Who knows.

There is much to do to coordinate the response from landowners where projects impact multiple landowners. It is necessary to give the developer something to work with and, far more importantly, no excuse not to engage constructively and fairly.

So this is what you can do. Record everything and pool the information amongst affected neighbours. Know your legal rights and insist that your costs are met so you are not left out of pocket. Get your advisors on board to help you navigate the process. And always remember, engagement is not approval.

Wills potentially rewritten: protecting the elderly and vulnerable

Exterior office building

Our latest podcast, Wills potentially rewritten: protecting the elderly and vulnerable, explores the Law Commission’s potentially far-reaching proposals for modernising laws governing wills in England and Wales.

The Law Commission recommendations for reform are aimed primarily at protecting testators (including from undue influence and fraud), and increasing clarity and certainty in the law where possible.

Could an iPhone video or handwritten note constitute a valid will? Would the recommendations help to stamp out predatory marriage? 

Co-hosts Raphaella Lafrance and Robert Linden Laird Craig are joined by Hannah Mantle (Partner, Trust and Estate Disputes) and Michael Armstrong (Counsel, Private Client) to discuss the proposals, what they might mean in practice, and the safety nets needed to protect society’s most vulnerable. 

Lifecycle of a business – M&A Exits: Exclusivity Agreements

Curved glass-fronted building reflects light, creating smooth waves across its surface, set against a clear blue sky.

Setting up and running your own business is an amazing achievement. It requires vision, creativity, motivation and stamina. On occasion, it can even bring you fame, riches and fortune. But it can also result in reams of paperwork and cause sleepless nights. And as someone once said to me about children “It doesn’t get easier, it just changes”, so the same can be said for your business throughout its lifecycle. From setting up to exit, it will force you to consider issues that you might not previously have known anything about and it will need you to make many decisions, sometimes very quickly. What it certainly is not is mundane.

With this in mind, the corporate team at Forsters, together with some of our specialist colleagues, has written a series of articles about the various issues and some of the key points that it may help you to know about at each stage of a business’s life. Not all of these will be relevant to you or your business endeavours, but we hope that you will find at least some of these guides interesting and useful, whether you just have the glimmer of an idea, are a start-up, a well-established enterprise or are considering your exit options. Do feel free to drop us a line or pick up the phone if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised further.

We’ve considered the main aspects of the lifecycle of a business from the beginning and you now want to sell….

M&A Exits: Exclusivity Agreements

You’re thinking about selling your business and a potential buyer has requested an exclusivity agreement. What do they mean and should you agree to it?

An exclusivity agreement prevents a seller from entering into discussions or negotiating with other potential buyers for a set period of time, thereby reducing the risk that the original buyer will spend time, money and effort in performing due diligence on a target company and negotiating with the seller, only for the seller to then sell to someone else.

Under English law, an exclusivity agreement does not oblige the buyer and the seller to agree a contract and either party can still walk away after the end of the exclusivity period (unlike in some jurisdictions), but it does give the buyer a head start over other potential buyers.

Key points to consider when negotiating an exclusivity agreement include:

Who are the parties?

The exclusivity agreement is between the buyer and the seller, and so, in a share sale (see our article here), the target company will usually not be included as a party. A buyer will often negotiate that the seller will procure that the target company shall not breach the seller’s exclusivity undertakings.

How long is the exclusivity period?

The exclusivity period must be specific, otherwise the seller’s exclusivity undertakings may not be enforceable. The length of the period will depend on the circumstances of each transaction and is a matter for negotiation.

Seller’s undertakings

The exclusivity agreement will set out what a seller may not do during the exclusivity period. Generally, the buyer will want the seller to:

  • terminate any existing discussions with other potential buyers; and
  • not provide information regarding the target company to, or negotiate with or solicit offers from, other potential buyers during the exclusivity period.

In addition, the buyer may insist that the seller notifies it of any approaches received from other potential buyers.

Seller protections

A seller should ensure that the terms of the exclusivity agreement are not so restrictive that it hinders its usual business operations during the exclusivity period. As such, specific wording to this effect will usually be requested by the seller.

In addition, the seller will want comfort that the exclusivity agreement will fall away if negotiations with the potential buyer end or if the buyer is not progressing with the transaction. A seller may also be able to include specific milestones for the buyer (for example, providing a first draft of the purchase agreement by a given date) which, if not adhered to, will result in the termination of the exclusivity agreement, or insist that exclusivity will no longer apply if the buyer seeks to materially amend the terms of the deal.

What happens if the seller breaches the exclusivity agreement?

The exclusivity agreement may provide that the buyer will be paid a fixed amount if the seller is in breach or include an indemnity which requires the seller to reimburse the buyer £ for £ for any loss suffered. If silent, the amount of damages will be determined by the court.

An alternative remedy may be an injunction which would stop the seller from continuing its breach (for example, force the seller to stop any discussions with a third party). Injunctions are awarded at the court’s discretion and so there is no guarantee that a buyer would be successful in obtaining one. In any event, given that exclusivity periods are generally quite short and that the original buyer might not become aware of the breach until late in the process, being granted an injunction is often not particularly helpful to a buyer.

Conclusion

Exclusivity agreements are buyer documents but can provide comfort to a seller that a potential buyer is at least serious about the deal. If, as a seller, you agree to enter into an exclusivity agreement, you can protect yourself to some degree by careful drafting and should take legal advice as soon as possible.

If you have any queries about the above or wish to discuss your exit or an acquisition in more detail, please get in touch with your usual Forsters’ contact or any member of the Forsters’ Corporate team.

Disclaimer

This note reflects the law as at 8 July 2025. The circumstances of each case vary and this note should not be relied upon in place of specific legal advice.

Dragomir Zyumbyulski
Author

Dragomir Zyumbyulski

View profile

Forsters Highly Commended in the Outstanding Legal Team of the Year – National & Mid-Sized Firms category at the Property Awards 2025

Glass panels reflect warm red and cool blue hues, intersecting at sharp angles against a clear sky, creating an abstract architectural perspective. No text present.

Forsters was proud to be Highly Commended in the Outstanding Legal Team of the Year – National & Mid-Sized Firms category at the Property Awards 2025, recognising the breadth and depth of our expertise in this arena.

The Property Awards, organised by leading industry title Property Week, recognise excellence, dedication, and innovation across the commercial property sector, including developers, investors, entrepreneurs, financiers, and agencies as well as law firms.

Find out more about our market-leading Commercial Real Estate team.

Victoria Towers
Author

Victoria Towers

View profile

Lifecycle of a business – I want to sell my business: Share sale v asset/business sale?

Fluted glass interior office building

Setting up and running your own business is an amazing achievement. It requires vision, creativity, motivation and stamina. On occasion, it can even bring you fame, riches and fortune. But it can also result in reams of paperwork and cause sleepless nights. And as someone once said to me about children “It doesn’t get easier, it just changes”, so the same can be said for your business throughout its lifecycle. From setting up to exit, it will force you to consider issues that you might not previously have known anything about and it will need you to make many decisions, sometimes very quickly. What it certainly is not is mundane.

With this in mind, the corporate team at Forsters, together with some of our specialist colleagues, has written a series of articles about the various issues and some of the key points that it may help you to know about at each stage of a business’s life. Not all of these will be relevant to you or your business endeavours, but we hope that you will find at least some of these guides interesting and useful, whether you just have the glimmer of an idea, are a start-up, a well-established enterprise or are considering your exit options. Do feel free to drop us a line or pick up the phone if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised further.

We’ve considered the main aspects of the lifecycle of a business from the beginning and you now want to sell….

I want to sell my business: Share sale v asset / business sale?

In the UK, the sale and purchase of a business can take one of two forms: a share sale or an asset / business sale. Which one you opt for will depend on various factors, including tax, the bargaining position of the parties, the reason for the sale, and so on.

This article briefly explains some of the key differences between the two options. For simplicity, we’ll assume that the company which runs the business is a private company limited by shares and that the purchase price is cash.

It’s worth noting that tax is often the key driver behind the structuring of any transaction. Although beyond the scope of this article, the parties should always seek specialist tax advice to ascertain the various tax implications that will arise on both a share sale and an asset sale.

Back to basics – who owns what?

In England and Wales, a company is a legal entity in its own right. This means that it can sue and be sued, own assets, and owe liabilities, in its own name.

The company is in turn owned by its shareholder(s) who each hold one or more shares in the company. The directors run the company on a day-to-day basis and are responsible for its management. They may or may not also be shareholders.

Share sale and asset sale: what’s the difference?

In a share sale, the buyer acquires the entire issued share capital in the company which runs the business (the target company) from the target company’s existing shareholder(s) (the seller(s)). As such, the purchase agreement (the share purchase agreement or SPA) will be entered into between the buyer and the existing shareholder(s); often, the target company will not be a party to the SPA at all. Essentially, the buyer is acquiring the entire business within a corporate / company wrapper. To an outsider looking in, there is no change to the actual business itself (i.e. the assets remain owned by the target company, any liabilities are still owed by the target company, any contracts that the target company has entered into remain in place and any employees remain with the target company), although it is common for the buyer to change the name and registered office of the target company and to change the directors. 

In an asset sale, the buyer acquires a bundle of specified assets and rights, and it may assume responsibility for certain liabilities and obligations, which together comprise the business. As it’s the company which owns those assets, rights, liabilities and obligations, the purchase agreement (the asset purchase agreement or APA) will be between the buyer and the company (as the seller). Asset sales allow the buyer to cherry pick which assets (and possibly liabilities) it wants to acquire.  

Pros and cons

Share sale

As a share sale effects a change in ownership at the level above the operating business (i.e. in the owner(s) of the shares in the target company), it enables the business to continue to operate without any disruption. There’s no need to transfer the individual assets and usually, no third party consent is required (unless any contracts include change of control provisions). As such, the sale can often remain confidential and a buyer can continue to benefit from any goodwill or reputation in the business. However, if there are a number of seller shareholders, they will all need to be on-board with the sale, and agree to and sign the SPA, which can result in added complexity.

A share sale can also provide the seller(s) with a clean exit (although in some transactions, a seller who is particularly important to the business, may retain some interest and involvement and the seller(s) is likely to be on the hook for any breach of warranty or indemnity claims for a period of time post-sale).

From a legal documentation point of view, a share sale can be more straightforward than an asset sale: it doesn’t require the transfer (novation) of any contracts required by the business from the seller to the buyer, nor does it require the parties to agree which assets and liabilities are being acquired and their individual purchase price.  

That said, because the buyer will be acquiring the entire business, warts and all, it is vital that the buyer does its homework and fully understands exactly what it’s buying. This exercise is referred to as due diligence, which is usually split between legal due diligence (completed by the buyer’s legal advisors), financial due diligence (completed by the buyer’s accountants or financial advisers) and commercial due diligence (completed by the buyer).

The aim of any due diligence exercise is to ensure that the buyer fully understands the business it’s buying and can make plans as to how this new business can be integrated into any business the buyer already owns. It also helps to flush out any skeletons in closets. This obviously creates risk in that the buyer could find out certain information which puts it off buying the company in the first place. If this happens, the buyer has various options; for example, it could:

  • negotiate a lower purchase price with the seller
  • request the inclusion of certain indemnities so that the seller will have to reimburse the buyer for any loss suffered in respect of specified events or liabilities post-completion
  • retain part of the purchase price for a period of time post-sale to cover any claims it might have against the seller post-completion
  • choose to walk away from the deal
  • request that the transaction be restructured as an asset sale

Asset sale

With an asset sale, both parties are afforded more flexibility in terms of what they sell and acquire, than in a share sale; for example, the seller may want to retain certain assets or parts of the business, while the buyer may want to exclude undesirable assets or liabilities, thereby reducing its risk exposure.

However, this flexibility comes at a cost and an asset sale is often more complex than a share sale due to the need to identify and transfer each of the separate assets which are being sold. As the company itself is the seller, any contracts which the company has entered into which are being transferred to the buyer will require the approval of the other party to the contract. Any licences related to the business will also need to be transferred and any security which has been granted over any of the assets being sold will need to be released. Obtaining these approvals can prolong the transaction and make it more difficult to keep the transaction confidential.

Due diligence will still be required, to enable the buyer to determine what it actually wants to purchase and to ensure that any contracts, licences, etc. are dealt with accordingly, but it may not be as all-encompassing an exercise as for a share sale.

Fewer warranties and indemnities are usually given on an asset sale than a share sale (an advantage for the selling side), and it will be the seller company, rather than that company’s shareholders, which actually give them. This substantially reduces the shareholders’ liability risk (although the buyer may insist on certain individuals giving additional protection, such as personal guarantees).

A significant issue arises in asset sales where the business has any employees. These may transfer under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006) (thereby cutting across the “cherry picking” benefits to a buyer of an asset sale). This can be complex and it’s vital that the correct procedure is followed, so specialist employment law advice should be taken if an asset sale is being undertaken and there are any employees in the business.  

Finally, don’t forget to consider where the purchase price will end up. In a share sale, the purchase price will be paid to the seller shareholder(s), whereas the purchase price on an asset sale will be paid to the selling company; that company’s shareholders will then have to decide how to move the cash out of the company. Legal and tax advice should be taken about this.

Conclusion

The structure of any business sale needs to be carefully considered by both sides to the transaction. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods and although this note summarises a few of these, we recommend that legal and tax advice should always be taken as soon as possible if you are considering selling or purchasing a business.

If you have any queries about the above or wish to discuss your exit or an acquisition in more detail, please get in touch with your usual Forsters’ contact or any member of the Forsters’ Corporate team.

Disclaimer

This note reflects the law as at 1 July 2025. The circumstances of each case vary and this note should not be relied upon in place of specific legal advice.