75% Probate fee increase from 13 July 2026: Are service levels keeping pace?

A modern building with sleek black columns supports a white structure overlooking a vast, calm ocean under a clear, blue sky.
The Ministry of Justice has announced that the probate application fee will increase from £300 to £526 from 13 July 2026– a rise of more than 75%. While the fee for copies of probate documents requested at the point of application will reduce from £16 to £2, that is unlikely to soften the impact for personal representatives and beneficiaries alike. 

Further details can be found in the Government’s announcement: Court and tribunal fees: updates from July 2026

The fee increase comes against a backdrop of improving performance for straightforward applications but continued delays on more complex matters.

HMCTS recently reported average turnaround times of around 4.3 weeks for straightforward applications, whilst paper applications continue to take significantly longer, averaging approximately 16 weeks and in some cases, way in excess of this. 

For practitioners dealing with international estates, foreign domicile applications remain a particular challenge. HMCTS has confirmed that specialist teams continue to deal with these cases, but applications requiring registrar involvement can still experience severe delays. 

These updates were discussed at the most recent Probate Professional User Group meeting with HMCTS and are summarised here: HMCTS update for probate firms – June 2026

Whilst the reduction in the overall probate backlog is welcome, international estates and other complex applications continue to require careful planning and realistic expectations regarding timescales. With probate fees increasing significantly this month, practitioners and clients alike will no doubt be hoping that service improvements continue to follow, particularly in relation to applications made on paper. 

For estates involving foreign assets, cross-border tax issues or questions of domicile, obtaining the grant is often only one part of the challenge. Specialist international probate advice can be invaluable in navigating multiple jurisdictions, avoiding unnecessary delays and ensuring that the administration progresses as efficiently as possible.

Please get in touch with Emma Jones if you would like more information. 

How do you set up a family office in Abu Dhabi – and why now?

A modern building with sleek black columns supports a white structure overlooking a vast, calm ocean under a clear, blue sky.

Family offices entering the ‘Capital of Capital’

As the Abu Dhabi Global Market (‘ADGM’) continues to grow, we are seeing more interest in ADGM as a jurisdiction in which to establish family offices. Against this backdrop, how can families best use ADGM to structure and manage their wealth? What are the different ways a family office can be established, and what activities can it carry out? And what legal, regulatory and structuring considerations – including governance, tax and succession planning – should families and their advisers keep in mind when setting up in Abu Dhabi? This article explores these questions and provides a practical overview of establishing a family office in ADGM.

The definition of ‘family offices’ is notoriously broad. One person understands it to mean an investment office for a single individual, another understands it to be a succession planning structure such as a trust or foundation, and another understands it to be a regulated business which manages assets on behalf of multiple wealthy clients.

London, Switzerland, Singapore and other jurisdictions have been prominent family office structuring jurisdictions for many years. But the influx of capital in the UAE, especially in the ADGM in very recent times, has led to a greater number of enquiries from clients on how to use ADGM to host a family office.

The ADGM is known for its sovereign capital. Sovereign wealth funds like Mubadala, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Emirates Investment Authority and the newly established L’imad represent the “Tier 1” capital layer in Abu Dhabi. It is these enormous sovereign institutions that have given the ADGM its label, ‘the Capital of Capital’. However, it is the next tiers of capital that are increasingly looking to join the sovereign giants in Abu Dhabi. This may include regional or global merchant families who wish to organise their operations and wealth a little more tightly (a “tier 2”, if you will). There is also a “tier 3”, comprising newly minted entrepreneurs, many of them expats who have sold substantial businesses large enough to justify having some formal structure to their wealth.

In the years ahead, it will be interesting to see how these different tiers of Abu Dhabi capital grow and interact, but in the meantime we, as the lawyers, are helping them establish their wealth structures.

The ADGM legal framework

The ADGM, under the English Law Regulations, incorporates English common law and equity (and 48 Acts of English legislation) directly into its law, subject to local ADGM enactment. Thus the ADGM places its faith in the judiciary and common law of England to make sensible decisions, whilst reserving its ability to enact its own legislation when the opportunity or context demands it. 

On the regulatory front, however, the ADGM has created its own regime, centred around the Financial Services and Markets Regulations 2015 (‘FSMR’) (in respect of regulated activity) and carefully drafted commercial legislation (in respect of non-regulated activity). The former is overseen by the Financial Services and Regulatory Authority (‘FSRA’), the ADGM’s regulator, and the latter by the ADGM Registration Authority.

Family offices as a ‘Controlled Activity’ 

The commercial licensing regime overseen by the ADGM Registration Authority has a set of robust rules governing family offices. For family offices who are not managing third party capital, their regulator is the Registration Authority (for regulated family offices see below).

Unregulated does not, however, mean unlicensed. ADGM law recognises the concept of ‘controlled activities’, which encompasses (inter alia) legal services, corporate service providers, auditing, tax consultancy and single family office activity. Family office activity can encompass one or more of the following through a legal entity (or legal arrangement such as a trust):

  • Concierge services for the family;
  • Human resources;
  • Strategic and risk management services;
  • Taxation and wealth planning;
  • Investment management and advisory services (which one would expect to cover asset allocation);
  • Legal and regulatory services (noting that ‘legal services’ are a separate controlled activity in the ADGM – this anticipates legal or regulatory services provided for the family rather than generally);
  • Financial services;
  • Holding company;
  • Acting as trustee or foundation (for a single family – again not to be confused with the more general licensable activities of corporate service provision or the regulated activity of trustee services); or
  • Any other controlled activity undertaken for a single family. 

‘Single family’ is defined to mean all direct ancestors and descendants of an individual, or group of individuals who are all related, including blood relations, step-children and adopted children whether of the individual or group of individuals. Helpfully, this is broad enough to cover different family branches (e.g. cousins) as long as they have an ancestor in common. The definition does not however include spouses of those descendants, which may be a relevant factor when drafting legal documentation.

Thus any legal entity or arrangement carrying out such activity for a ‘single family’ will be conducting a controlled activity. This means that they cannot simply incorporate a standard company in the ADGM and begin family office operations; specific authorisations will be required from the ADGM Registration Authority.

ADGM law, it should be noted, stipulates that an ADGM single family office falling under the Controlled Activities Rules must have a minimum ‘value’ of USD 10,000,000. How does one define ‘value’? It is interpreted with reference to the net asset value of the family in question, as opposed to the balance sheet of the family office. This is important, given that (as acknowledged below), ADGM family offices will not necessarily be asset holding structures.

Regulated family offices

Regulated family offices in the ADGM fall within the FSRA’s broader framework for authorised financial services firms. In practice, a “regulated family office” is a single family office entity that will carry out one or more “Regulated Activities” under FSMR, such as managing assets, advising on investments, or arranging deals in investments. If the activity is conducted “by way of business,” the family office entity must obtain a Financial Services Permission (‘FSP’) from the FSRA to operate as an ‘Authorised person’ (that is assuming it doesn’t fall within an exemption). Typically, the authorisation will be under Category 3 or Category 4. Category 4 authorisations are normally required for advisory-only or arranging functions, while Category 3 applies where the family office exercises discretionary control over assets or operates in a manner functionally similar to a boutique asset manager. 

As above, where a family office remains purely intra-family and does not provide services to external clients, it may fall outside the FSRA perimeter, in which case we return to our analysis above on Controlled Activities under the Registration Authority.

Regulated family offices are expected to comply with the full suite of FSRA requirements, including governance arrangements, compliance systems and controls, anti-money laundering obligations and, where applicable, prudential capital requirements under the FSRA Prudential Rulebook. 

It ought to be noted that, unlike say the DIFC (with its Family Office Arrangements), the ADGM has no specific regulatory regime for family offices.

Trusts, foundations and tax considerations in ADGM family offices

As mentioned earlier, some clients and advisors equate family offices to succession planning vehicles such as trusts and foundations. 

In fact, the structuring of the family office (including its regulation and legal status) is a separate consideration to how it is held. In some cases, the shares of a family office company are held by a trust or foundation, but sometimes they may be standalone companies (or more rarely partnerships).

In deciding whether a family office should be held within a trust or foundation structure, there are a number of considerations as set out below:

  1. Trusts and foundations sometimes hold underlying companies for tax reasons. In the UAE, a ‘family foundation’ (such definition including a trust) is eligible to make a corporate tax transparency election under Article 17 of the Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022 on the Taxation of Corporations and Businesses, since extended to underlying companies pursuant to Ministerial Decision No. 261. Whether or not tax benefits will accrue through the election is a separate matter, but it requires consideration nonetheless.
  2. There may also be regulatory considerations in the use of foundations and trusts. If full FSRA regulation is required, then an application to carry out Regulated Activities may be made by a Body Corporate or a Partnership, but not a trust or foundation.
  3. Succession planning questions arise. If indeed the family office is holding substantive assets (more likely with a fully FSRA regulated vehicle, but also possible under the Controlled Activities Rules), then a succession plan for the owner(s) must be considered. A Will executed by non-Muslims in the Dubai International Finance Centre may provide a solution. The Abu Dhabi Judicial Department also provide a Wills solution for a broader category of individuals than just non-Muslim expatriates. However, a trust or foundation is often preferred where the assets are material, and where probate processes would disrupt the flow of family office business should the shareholder pass away. The ADGM foundations and trust regimes provide solutions, as can offshore structures.
  4. Finally, in a family office structure there are governance issues that can be elegantly resolved through the use of foundations and trusts. Where oversight of a family office is required, trust or foundation ownership of the family office gives the broader family the opportunity to serve on the Council of the foundation (or board of the trust company, if a Private Trust Company). Then bespoke arrangements can be entered into to ensure there is information flow and suitable approvals between the family office entity and the shareholder trust or foundation. We have used this type of structure many times to help resolve (or prevent) family conflict in the family office.

The future of family offices in ADGM

ADGM is firmly establishing itself as a compelling jurisdiction for family offices, underpinned by its English common law legal framework, flexible approach to regulation, and the option to operate within or outside full financial regulation depending on the family’s needs. 

With government bodies, regulators and service providers increasingly aligned in promoting Abu Dhabi as a family office jurisdiction, it is likely that the current trend in ADGM family office structuring will continue. However, successful implementation depends on careful structuring from the outset. Thoughtful consideration of regulatory requirements, family governance arrangements, and long-term wealth planning will be critical to ensuring that family offices established in ADGM are both compliant and resilient. In this context, coordinated legal and tax advice remains essential to achieving an effective and future-proof structure.

When data centres become targets: a legal wake‑up call on resilience, data sovereignty and energy security

Skyscrapers rise into a cloudy night sky, their windows glowing with interior lights. Nearby buildings reflect on the glass surface, creating an urban atmosphere.

Recent attacks on data centres during the ongoing conflict involving Iran underline a stark reality. Data centres are no longer just commercial assets. They are strategic infrastructure.

Their targeting reflects how deeply digital infrastructure is embedded in modern economies. Banking systems, healthcare, logistics, government services and AI platforms all rely on uninterrupted access to data. When data centres fail, the consequences are immediate, wide‑ranging and often legally complex.

For businesses, developers and investors, this marks a shift. Operational resilience, data sovereignty and energy security are now legal and strategic considerations, not simply technical ones.

Resilience is becoming a legal obligation

Historically, resilience was addressed through service levels and technical design. That position is changing rapidly.

In the UK, data centres have been designated Critical National Infrastructure, and forthcoming reforms to the cyber and resilience regime will bring large data centres directly within the scope of regulatory oversight. Operators will be expected to demonstrate appropriate and proportionate measures to manage physical, cyber and operational risk, alongside mandatory incident reporting.

From a legal perspective, this raises key questions:

  • How resilience obligations are allocated between landowners, developers, operators and occupiers.
  • Whether existing leases, options, development agreements and collateral warranties adequately address business continuity, outages and force majeure.
  • The extent to which resilience commitments should be reflected in planning conditions, infrastructure agreements and funding documentation.

Standards such as ISO 22301 (Business Continuity) and ISO/IEC 27001 (Information Security) are increasingly relevant as reference points when assessing whether resilience measures are reasonable or market standard. This is particularly so in disputes, regulatory scrutiny or transactional due diligence.

Data sovereignty moves from policy to property

The conflict also sharpens the focus on where data is stored and under whose control.

Data sovereignty is no longer driven solely by data protection law. Geopolitical risk, sanctions exposure and national security considerations are influencing decisions about site selection, ownership structures and operational control of data centres.

For the UK and EU, this is accelerating demand for:

  • In‑country and sovereign data centre capacity.
  • Greater scrutiny of foreign ownership and control.
  • Contractual restrictions on data location, access rights and cross‑border failover arrangements.

From a property and development perspective, this has implications for planning strategy, investment structuring, joint ventures and long‑term asset value, particularly where sites are intended to support public‑sector, regulated or sensitive workloads.

Energy security becomes part of resilience

Recent events in the Middle East underline a further and often under‑appreciated risk. Data centre resilience is inseparable from energy security.

The current conflict involving Iran has driven a sharp increase in global oil prices, compounded by Qatar’s unprecedented decision to halt oil production. That development alone has exposed the fragility of global energy supply chains and the speed at which geopolitical events can translate into economic and operational instability. For infrastructure reliant on continuous, high‑volume power, the implications are immediate.

In this context, energy strategy is no longer just a question of cost or sustainability. Secure, controllable access to power is now a core resilience issue.

While the sustainability case for renewables is well established, the energy security case cannot be undervalued. On‑site and locally generated power, including wind, solar and tidal energy, can reduce dependence on volatile international markets and exposed fuel supply routes when paired with appropriate storage and grid balancing. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are also increasingly being examined as a potential long‑term solution for delivering stable, low‑carbon baseload power to energy‑intensive infrastructure such as data centres.

For developers, investors and occupiers, this reframes energy procurement as a legal and strategic risk issue. It raises questions around long‑term power availability, exposure to fuel and pricing shocks, planning and consenting strategy, and how energy risk is allocated contractually across ownership and operational structures.

In short, resilience is no longer just about surviving outages. It is about insulating critical infrastructure from geopolitical energy shocks. Sustainability remains vital, but the current conflict demonstrates that energy security now sits alongside decarbonisation as a primary driver of data centre strategy.

Resilience, sustainability and regulation are converging

Resilience cannot be separated from sustainability. For example, the EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive now imposes reporting and performance obligations on larger data centres, including energy usage, cooling efficiency and waste heat reuse.

While driven by climate policy, these requirements also support resilience by reducing strain on power, cooling and grid infrastructure. All of these are critical during periods of disruption. For developers, energy strategy is increasingly inseparable from resilience strategy.

What this means in practice

For those involved in developing, owning or operating data centres, the lesson is clear. Resilience, data sovereignty and energy security must be embedded at a legal and structural level, not retrofitted later.

That means:

  • Addressing resilience and power security at the site selection and planning stage.
  • Clearly allocating operational and energy‑related risk in contracts and funding documentation.
  • Treating regulatory compliance as a value‑preserving exercise, not a tick‑box.

The events in Iran may be extreme, but the signal is unmistakable. Data centres are now nationally significant assets. Their regulation, design and energy strategy are evolving accordingly.

Those who anticipate this shift will be better placed to manage risk, protect asset value and maintain trust in an increasingly uncertain world.

Cloud infrastructure was always theoretically vulnerable to kinetic warfare, but nobody had priced that risk in so far. Now that has to change

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/iran-war-shows-data-centers-emerging-as-critical-targets/3852984