Countries generally recognise the importance of individuals forming families, which are regarded as fundamental units and a cornerstone of national economies. To this end, various states implement incentives and provide compensation to encourage participation in these familial structures. The right to inherit family assets is one of the most significant entitlements reserved primarily for family members, a recognition found in nearly all modern nations. This right is upheld as a foundational element for societal well-being by the legal frameworks of both Ukraine and England.

Written by an SQE1 Graduate and Future Solicitor

This review has been prepared by a Ukrainian advocate and aspiring solicitor of England and Wales who has successfully completed the SQE1 examination and is currently awaiting admission to the roll of solicitors.

The author prepared for SQE1 with the Academy of Smart Lawyers and successfully passed the assessment. Although exempt from SQE2 as a qualified foreign lawyer, she was also exposed to the Academy’s SQE2 preparation programme and practical skills training, providing valuable insight into both stages of the solicitor qualification process.

As both a foreign-qualified lawyer and future solicitor of England and Wales, she brings a perspective that many international candidates will recognise: balancing an existing legal career while navigating a new qualification system, a different legal culture, and one of the world’s most demanding professional examinations.

This review therefore combines practical candidate experience, professional legal insight, and first-hand exposure to the resources discussed throughout this series.

Spousal Priority in Inheritance

Despite the apparent similarities in national regulations, there are significant differences in the inheritance rights of family members in Ukraine and the United Kingdom. In the UK, the spouse of a deceased person is often rightly considered the “better half” of the immediate family when it comes to statutory priority in accessing the deceased’s assets.

This understanding is particularly illustrated in scenarios where the deceased has not left a will, where the will does not encompass the entirety of the estate, or the will is considered invalid for any reason. The lines of succession in such cases are delineated by the principal legislations of the respective jurisdictions: Chapter 86 of the Civil Code 2003 in Ukraine, commonly referred to as the “Ukrainian Civil Code,” and Part IV of the Administration of Estates Act of 1925 in England and Wales, known as the “1925 Act.”

Key Differences in Inheritance Laws: Ukraine vs. the UK

In England and Wales, the 1925 Act sets out the order of succession, which is largely consistent with that in other parts of the UK. According to this statute, spouses inherit the majority of the assets. Specifically, the surviving spouse receives a statutory legacy, currently set at £322,000, all of the deceased’s personal chattels, and half of the remaining estate. Additionally, if any assets were owned as joint tenants with the deceased, the surviving joint tenant – who is also the spouse – inherits the entirety of those assets by survivorship. This already represents a significant portion of the estate, often leaving little to nothing for other family members who are in the first line of succession. Importantly, this line is restricted under the Act to the deceased’s spouse and children only.

In the Ukrainian Civil Code, the list of first-line heirs is expanded to include the parents of the deceased. This significantly broadens the pool of individuals entitled to inherit, especially if both parents are alive. However, unlike the UK 1925 Act, Ukrainian law does not make similar provisions for statutory legacies, chattels, or for a compulsory half of the estate residue.

Moreover, a person wishing to bequeath their entire estate to a partner is often unable to do so, even by unequivocally expressing such intention in a will. This is because Article 1241 of the Ukrainian Civil Code mandates certain inheritance rights, ensuring that first-line heirs who are minors or unable to support themselves at the time of the testator’s death receive a guaranteed share. Notably, “unable to work” includes individuals who have reached the statutory retirement age.

In practice, this provision tends to protect parents – who are more likely to be at retirement age when a testator passes away – rather than a spouse.

Courts’ Power to Intervene

The issue of multiple heirs asserting entitlement to the assets of the deceased can frequently be addressed through litigation. In Ukraine, the judiciary possesses extensive authority to modify the distribution of inheritances or to exclude certain heirs entirely from the succession process. In determining inheritance rights, the court will evaluate various factors, including the nature of the relationship between the heirs and the deceased, whether they cohabitated or were separated, and their influence on the deceased’s decision to make or amend a will.

Similarly, courts within the United Kingdom are empowered to adjust the rights of heirs to an estate and distribute it otherwise than determined by a valid will. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”), the judiciary here is permitted to consider a range of factors; however, these factors are arguably different from those recognised under the Ukrainian Civil Code. In the UK context, a pivotal consideration is whether the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for an individual seeking reasonable provision from the estate.

The legislation delineates the categories of individuals eligible to make claims under the 1975 Act, thereby significantly expanding the first line of succession compared to prior legal frameworks. Notably, the 1975 Act upholds the rights of a former spouse who has not remarried, in addition to individuals who were financially dependent on the deceased immediately prior to their death and were regarded as children by the deceased.

In the context of married couples or civil partners, should a spouse be omitted from a will by the testator, the court has the authority to award the claimant a portion of the testator’s estate equivalent to what they would reasonably receive in the event of a divorce. This provision remains applicable unless there exists a serious justification for such exclusion, which the court will evaluate based on the specific circumstances of each individual case.

Conclusion

Drawing a line under the above comparison, it is evident that spouses, including, in certain instances, former spouses, possess significantly greater inheritance rights in the United Kingdom than in Ukraine. In Ukraine, a surviving spouse holds no advantage over individuals positioned in the first line of succession, which is inherently broader than the corresponding provisions in the United Kingdom. Conversely, under English law, the rights of spouses are prioritised over those of other successors within the same line. These rights often stand even if the spouse has been excluded from a will, irrespective of their employability.

This stark contrast in the treatment of family rights and relationships is undoubtedly influenced by the differing traditions and cultural contexts of each country. It is important to recognise that neither approach achieves perfect justice in all cases. However, society wins when the best interests of those most vulnerable and most needing (most often children of the deceased) are upheld within either legal framework.