A will and estate plan covering assets in the United Kingdom

For a family with roots in Asia and assets in the United Kingdom, the question is rarely whether they need a will. The question is whether the will they have – often prepared in one jurisdiction by counsel who have never looked across the border – actually works when the estate opens. In our cross-border private-wealth practice, the answer is too often: not fully, and sometimes not at all.

A will and estate plan covering assets in the United Kingdom requires a coordinated approach across the laws of England and Wales (or Scotland, where relevant), Hong Kong, and any other jurisdiction where the family holds assets or is resident. The governing instruments include the Wills Act 1837 as applied to testamentary capacity and formal validity in England and Wales, the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29) where Hong Kong trusts sit above the estate, and the United Kingdom's Inheritance Tax regime, which follows assets and domicile simultaneously. The planning work begins long before death – at the point where residence, asset mix and family structure first interact.

This service note sets out when a cross-border principal needs this work done, the route we run alongside locally licensed counsel, the documents and decisions the client must own, and the specific interface between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom that determines outcome.

When does a foreign principal need this – and what triggers the urgency?

The trigger is rarely a single event. More often it is a combination: the family acquires a London property; a child relocates to study and then stays; the principal takes on a directorship through a UK-registered entity. Each step deepens the family's connection to the United Kingdom's legal system, and the UK system responds by asserting jurisdiction over more of the estate.

The sharpest regulatory-exposure moment comes when a principal becomes deemed domiciled (a statutory test under UK tax law that treats long-term UK residents as domiciled in the United Kingdom for Inheritance Tax purposes, regardless of their intention to leave). Once that threshold is crossed, UK Inheritance Tax can apply to worldwide assets, not only UK-situated property. The timing depends on the length and continuity of UK residence, and it is a threshold that can be reached without a deliberate choice – simply by remaining.

A second trigger is a change in family structure: a marriage, a divorce, a death in an earlier generation, or the arrival of a new generation that includes beneficiaries in multiple jurisdictions. Each of these events can make a will drafted years earlier legally effective but practically wrong – distributing assets in a sequence or a proportion that no longer reflects the family's intentions or interests.

We regularly advise principals at precisely these moments: when the combination of UK asset exposure and cross-border family structure creates a gap that neither the Hong Kong adviser nor the UK adviser, working alone, can close.

What is the cross-border interface between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom?

The Hong Kong – United Kingdom interface in estate planning sits at the intersection of three legal questions: which law governs the validity of the will, which law governs the succession to each category of asset, and which system has the primary claim to tax the estate.

As a general position in English private international law, the formal validity of a will is governed by a range of connecting factors – including the law of the place where the will was executed, the law of the testator's domicile, and the law of the place where immovable property is situated. Hong Kong applies similar common-law principles. A will executed in Hong Kong by a principal with UK-situated immovable property can be formally valid in both jurisdictions if it is drafted with both sets of requirements in mind. If it is not, a grant of probate obtained in one place may not be recognised in the other without further proceedings.

Succession to immovable property in England and Wales is governed by the law of England and Wales. This is not a choice. A Hong Kong will that deals with a London flat must satisfy English requirements for formal validity and must not conflict with any mandatory English succession rules. The position on movable property – shares held through a UK broker, for example – is governed by the law of the testator's domicile, which creates a further layer of analysis where the testator is a Hong Kong permanent resident with a UK address maintained for business.

The Hong Kong Trustee Ordinance becomes directly relevant where the family has placed assets into a Hong Kong-law trust above the estate. The trust's treatment of UK-situated assets, and the interaction between the trust and the UK's reservation of benefit rules (provisions that can pull assets back into the UK taxable estate if the settlor retains economic enjoyment), requires precise alignment between the trust deed and the estate plan. Since 1 December 2013, Hong Kong trusts governed by the Trustee Ordinance have benefited from strengthened protection against foreign forced-heirship claims and have no rule against perpetuities – advantages that can be preserved or lost depending on how the UK assets are held.

Hong Kong imposes no estate duty, no capital gains tax, and no inheritance tax. The contrast with the United Kingdom is significant. A well-structured estate plan does not eliminate UK Inheritance Tax – that claim is real and must be addressed honestly – but it does ensure that the plan is built with full knowledge of where the liability sits and what reliefs, exemptions and timing mechanisms are available.

For a deeper reading of how private-trust structures interact with cross-border succession in a related jurisdiction, see our analysis of private-trust structures and family assets in the UAE and our guide to private-trust structures covering UK assets.

How does the route actually run – step by step?

Our engagement on a will and estate plan covering UK assets follows a defined sequence. The sequence is not bureaucratic. It reflects the fact that the decisions compound: a wrong answer at step one creates a harder problem at step three.

The first step is a domicile and residence audit – a structured review of the principal's connections to the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, covering the length and nature of UK residence, the location of the principal's assets and liabilities, the family's residence positions, and any prior estate-planning documents in any jurisdiction. This audit drives everything that follows. Where domicile is contested or unclear – a common position for principals who have maintained multiple homes over decades – we document the position carefully, because it will be the first question asked when the estate opens.

The second step is asset mapping. Every asset category carries its own succession rule. UK real property follows the law of England and Wales. UK company shares have their own position. Life-insurance proceeds may or may not form part of the estate depending on how the policy was written. Pensions are governed by a separate set of rules. A plan that addresses only the headline assets leaves gaps that become visible at the worst moment.

The third step is structure review. If the family already holds assets through a Hong Kong trust, a BVI holding company, or another offshore vehicle, the estate plan must align with those structures. The question is whether the principal's interest in the structure forms part of the UK taxable estate, and whether the succession to that interest on death is governed by the structure's own terms or by the will. These questions do not answer themselves.

The fourth step is document preparation. For a principal with assets in England and Wales, this means at minimum a UK-compliant will dealing with UK-situated assets. It may also mean a separate Hong Kong will for Hong Kong-situated assets, a letter of wishes addressed to trustees, and updates to any existing structure documents. We coordinate with locally licensed Hong Kong firms on the Hong Kong elements and introduce allied counsel admitted in England and Wales for the UK-law instruments. The client has one coordinated view of the plan; execution runs in parallel across the jurisdictions.

The fifth step is review and maintenance. A will is not a document that survives unchanged. Changes in UK residence, changes in asset mix, changes in family structure, and changes in the tax rules all require a return to the plan. We build a review mechanism into every engagement.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the documents, the jurisdictions actually engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost. To discuss how this sequence applies to your position, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

What documents and decisions does the client own?

A cross-border estate plan produces a set of documents and a set of decisions. Both belong to the client. The documents can be drafted by counsel; the decisions cannot be delegated.

The primary document is the will – or, more commonly, a set of wills. Where a principal holds assets in England and Wales and separately in Hong Kong, two separate wills are often the right approach: each instrument deals with the assets in its own jurisdiction, applies the formal requirements of that jurisdiction, and avoids the risk that a will drafted for one system inadvertently revokes or undermines the other. The coordination between the two is where the cross-border adviser's role is essential.

The core decisions the client must own are: domicile intention, the choice of executors and trustees in each jurisdiction, the appointment of guardians for minor children where relevant, the allocation of specific assets to specific beneficiaries, and the decision on whether to establish or continue a trust structure above the estate. Each of these decisions has legal consequences that persist long after the document is signed. A principal who has not thought through the executor question – who will administer the estate in England, who will deal with the UK authorities, who has the relationship with the family – is leaving a practical gap that creates delay and cost at the worst time.

Where the family includes beneficiaries in jurisdictions with forced-heirship rules (mandatory succession rights that override testamentary freedom, common in civil-law systems including parts of Continental Europe and the Middle East), the plan must address whether those claims could attach to UK-situated assets. Hong Kong law has no forced-heirship regime, and the Trustee Ordinance's strengthened firewall protects Hong Kong-law trusts against such claims. The position in England and Wales is different: English law does not enforce foreign forced-heirship rules against UK-situated immovable property, but the interaction is fact-specific and requires analysis, not assumption.

A micro-scenario illustrates the point. A principal of European origin, resident in Hong Kong for many years, held a London apartment and a portfolio of UK equities. The family included adult children in two different countries with different succession laws. The existing will – prepared in the principal's home country – made no provision for the UK assets under English law. When we reviewed the structure, the UK assets would have fallen into a partial intestacy on the current facts. We coordinated a UK-compliant will for the UK assets, aligned it with a Hong Kong will dealing with the Hong Kong-situated assets, and reviewed the interaction with the family trust. The alignment took one engagement cycle. The cost of not doing it would have been contested probate proceedings in two jurisdictions simultaneously.

What are the common mistakes foreign principals make in this area?

The most common mistake is the assumption that a will is portable. A will prepared in Hong Kong by Hong Kong-qualified solicitors, even if formally valid in England and Wales, is not necessarily optimal for UK assets. It may not address UK Inheritance Tax efficiently. It may appoint executors who are not familiar with UK probate procedure. It may use language that creates ambiguity under English construction rules. The document works in a technical sense; it does not work well.

The second mistake is failing to update. A will made before the family acquired UK property, or before a child became resident in the UK, or before a significant change in the UK tax rules, may be formally valid but substantively wrong. The principal signed it, believes it covers everything, and has not returned to it. In our cross-border practice, we see this regularly – particularly where the UK asset was acquired as a secondary matter, a London flat used during business travel, and the family never thought of it as an estate-planning event.

The third mistake is treating the UK will and the Hong Kong will as independent documents prepared by independent sets of counsel without coordination. The two instruments must be read together. A clause in the Hong Kong will that purports to deal with all assets, wherever situated, can inadvertently revoke the UK will. A power-of-attorney arrangement in one jurisdiction may not be recognised in the other. The drafting of each instrument must be aware of the other.

If an earlier filing, structure or enforcement attempt produced an adverse or stalled result – a grant of probate challenged in England, a trust challenged as invalid in Hong Kong, a tax assessment that the estate was unprepared for – a second read can identify the strategic error and the routes still open. Write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

Decision matrix: situation, instrument, route, timing and risk

Different situations produce different requirements. The decision logic runs as follows.

Where the principal is a long-term Hong Kong resident with a London property and no UK domicile: the priority instrument is a UK will dealing with the UK immovable property, aligned with a Hong Kong will for Hong Kong-situated assets. The route involves allied counsel admitted in England and Wales for the UK will, and locally licensed Hong Kong firms for the Hong Kong will. Timing is driven by any identified UK-residence accumulation. Risk is principally inheritance-tax exposure on the UK property and the potential for a contested grant of probate where the estate crosses jurisdictions.

Where the principal has crossed or is approaching the deemed-domicile threshold for UK Inheritance Tax: the instrument set expands. The estate plan must be built with explicit attention to the UK worldwide-asset exposure. A trust review is mandatory. Timing is urgent; certain reliefs and elections available before deemed-domicile status is established are not available after. Risk is a materially larger tax liability than the family has modelled.

Where the family includes beneficiaries in a forced-heirship jurisdiction and the estate includes UK assets: the UK will must deal with the UK assets explicitly. The interaction between the forced-heirship claim, the trust structure, and the UK rules requires a specific analysis. The route runs through coordinated counsel in the relevant jurisdictions, not through a single instrument that attempts to address all systems at once. Risk is a successful challenge to the distribution in one jurisdiction that unravels the plan in another.

Where the principal is restructuring an existing estate plan following a significant life event – a marriage, a divorce, the death of a prior generation, a change in residence – the review begins with the existing documents and maps the gap between what they say and what the current family and asset position requires. Every existing instrument must be re-examined in light of the changed facts.

Self-assessment checklist: is your estate plan fit for UK asset exposure?

The following questions are a first-pass test. A "no" or "uncertain" answer to any of them suggests a gap worth addressing before it becomes a problem.

• Do you have a will that is formally valid in England and Wales and that specifically addresses your UK-situated assets?
• Does that will coordinate explicitly with any Hong Kong will, trust deed, or holding structure above the estate?
• Have you reviewed your UK residence position in the last two years and assessed where you sit relative to the deemed-domicile threshold?
• Have you appointed UK executors who are familiar with UK probate procedure and who have the practical capacity to administer a cross-border estate?
• Have you considered whether your existing trust structure protects or exposes UK-situated assets, and whether the interaction with UK tax rules is as you intended?
• Have you reviewed the plan following any change in family structure, asset mix, or UK tax law since the documents were last prepared?
• If any beneficiary is resident in a forced-heirship jurisdiction, have you assessed whether that claim could attach to UK assets under the applicable conflict-of-laws analysis?

A principal who can answer "yes, and reviewed recently" to each of these questions has a defensible position. A principal who cannot should treat this as the trigger for the engagement, not the precursor to it.

Common objections and the answer to each

One objection we hear regularly is: "My UK solicitors have already dealt with this." In most cases, what the UK solicitors have done is prepare a UK will for UK assets prepared under English law. That is the right instrument for the UK element. It is not a cross-border estate plan. It does not address the interaction with the Hong Kong-situated assets, the trust structure, the residence position, or the forced-heirship exposure from other family members. The UK will is one piece. The question is whether the pieces fit together.

A second objection is: "The assets are not large enough to justify this level of planning." This is a category error. The cost of a contested grant of probate in two jurisdictions, or an unexpected Inheritance Tax assessment on assets the family did not believe were taxable in the UK, or a distribution that produces a family dispute because the will did not clearly state what was intended – these costs are not proportionate to asset size. They are the result of a planning gap, and the gap is not a function of the value of the estate.

A third objection is timing: "We will get to this after the next transaction." Estate planning does not benefit from delay, and the UK residence clock does not stop. The point at which planning becomes urgent is often the point at which the most useful options are no longer available.

Related practices

• Private Wealth – succession, asset protection and family-office structuring across Greater China and offshore centres
• Holding Structures – BVI, Cayman and Hong Kong holding entities above operating and investment assets

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

Related

• Private Wealth
• Private Trust Family Assets Uae Uae Analysis
• Private Trust Family Assets United Kingdom Uk Guide

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.