Absolutely correct, in E&W. I apologise if I had suggested otherwise. The distinction I was trying to make was that between the provisions in E&W and in Scotland, and I don't think juralhawk has clarified that for us yet. Again, you are quite correct. I hoped to have had made clear that the grounds for amending the arrangements of a Will in E&W are the 'adequate provision for the maintenance of a child' (even if an adult child), and not merely that a child was being disinherited. But in Scotland (and some other EU territories) that same disinheritance will automatically void the Will, and revert to intestacy. In most of the remaining EU territories, a disinheritance would trigger a formulaic redistribution, and a few such as RoI would redistribute on application. I apologise if I have been unclear in making these distinctions. It might simplify the advice if juralhawk would state the jurisdiction which applies. The username suggested that it might just be Scottish. And also, if in E or W, whether the sum remaining to the adult child would be enough for their 'maintenance'.

An aggreived party might consider bringing a private prosecution for the Offence under the CCA, at their own expense, as expressely permitted under S.6 of the 1985 Prosecution of Offences Act . The procedures to be followed are essentially those followed by any public prosecutor as laid out in the Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR).

I'm a little concerned from your reply that I might not have expressed myself very clearly. Let me try to put that right: If the estate and the deceased are in Scotland, and if the Will omits to make provision for their child (even if an adult by this time), then the Will is void. Yes, the procedure for an intestate death will be applied. Your relative, the stated beneficiary receives nothing. If the estate and the deceased are in England or Wales, and if the Will omits to make provision for the maintenance of their child (even if an adult by this time), then, on application to the Family Court, the Will will be amended to make that provision. Probate will then follow, and your relative, the stated beneficiary, will receive an adjusted amount. Only if the Will does make adequate provision for their child (even if an adult by this time), and there are no other parties in a position to challenge the Will, should you expect that the Executor will apply for a 'Grant of Representation' (E&W) or 'confirmation' (Scot). They will have a fee to pay - they may have instructed a Law Firm to do this for them. If they do not do so in a timely manner, you should contact your Probate Office or a Family Law Solicitor.

Yes, a Will can be contested, and they often are. The expense of doing so will be as great as the parties allow it to become - there is a risk of becoming committed to spending more in the hope of achieving a bigger reward. Unusually, England & Wales is one of the few territories in Europe where a Will may entirely disinherit a child or dependant. If you are in Scotland, then a Will which disinherits a dependant is automatically voided. But even in E&W, the 1975 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act does require a Will to make reasonable arrangements for the maintenance of a child or dependant. If the Will doesn't do that, then it will be adjusted by a Court. This needn't be expensive if the parties are amicable and willing to make the adjustment - sadly, this doesn't seem to apply to your circumstances, but I would advise an appointment with a local law firm which has a specialist in Family Law.

I'm not persuaded that the particulars of Mr Beavis' claim are likely to give the most useful outcome, if taken to the Supreme Court or even in this, failed, Appeal to the High Court. My reason is simply the facts of the specific parking scheme in question, where the tariff is two-hours free parking, and after that free period, there is a charge of £85 (reduced to £50 for prompt payment). In such a scheme, there is no mechanism for the operator to generate revenue other than through these charges, so it could be argued (and was so argued in the CoA) that the charge is a necessary element of managing the space. A consequential line of reasoning (which is not relevant to the legal question) was that in the absence of these charges, then the car park would surely be occupied all day long by local commuters and shop workers leading to a situation in which it would rarely be possible for the likes of Mr Beavis to find a convenient parking space at all. I believe that a much better candidate for a 'test case' would have been one in which there was a tariff of a reasonable market rate for parking, followed by a much higher charge for over-staying, where it could be argued that the proper regulation of the car park could be adequately funded from the receipts from valid and in-time parking. That situation creates the conditions in which the charges for overstaying can be seen to be 'profit' beyond any liquidated damages and any actual costs of providing the service, in other words, a 'penalty', which is an argument unavailable to Mr Beavis.