Analysis
The claimant was born on 2 January 2010. His mother did not look after him and social services arranged for him to be taken from hospital to the home of his father’s sister (the deceased) and grandmother, the second defendant, at 42 Chestnut Rise, Woolwich. The claimant’s father was unable to contribute much to his care as he was imprisoned soon after his birth and burdened by significant debt. Thus, it was the deceased who contributed most to the maintenance of the claimant, who continued to live with her there until she died on 11 February 2016. By her will, made a day before her death, the deceased entrusted her son, the first defendant, to hold property in her estate for the education of the claimant, her intention being ‘to ensure his future is a success and to provide him with the start in life I gave him’. The deceased was the sole registered proprietor of 216 Davidson Road, Croydon and a joint registered proprietor of 8a Voce Road; 113 Moordown, Woolwich (the home of the first defendant); and 42 Chestnut Rise, Woolwich (the home of the second defendant).
A family dispute arose after the reading of the will. The deceased had not died intestate and letters of administration were wrongly granted to the first defendant on 7 August 2018. The claimant, acting by his litigation friend, issued a claim on 27 November 2019 for reasonable financial provision out of the deceased’s estate on the basis that he was treated as a child of the family or was being maintained, and sought an order that the deceased’s severable share in 8a Voce Road be treated as part of her estate. On 6 March 2020 an order was made revoking the grant of letters of administration and requiring the first defendant to apply for letters with the will annexed. On 18 February 2022 an interim injunction was granted restraining any registered disposition of 42 Chestnut Rise, 113 Moordown or 8a Voce Road.
Held (allowing the claim):
The claimant was eligible to make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Act) because it was accepted by the first defendant that he was a person being maintained by the deceased within s1(1)(e) and it was found, on the evidence, that he was also treated by the deceased as a child of the family within s1(1)(d). The deceased’s will made no financial provision for the claimant because none of the properties formed part of the estate and according to the accounts there was no residue. The claimant did not have a housing need as he was now living with his father, but his father was unable to provide all that was required for his maintenance up to the end of his higher or further education and in the circumstances a sum of £50,000 would represent reasonable financial provision for him by treating the deceased’s several share in 8a Voce Road as part of her estate.
As regards the absence of a grant of representation, while a note in the White Book indicated that there must be a grant in place for an order to be made, the Act did not prohibit the making of an order before a grant. Nor was a prohibition to be inferred by the terms of the Act. While it did require orders under the Act to be sent to the Principal Registry for a memorandum to be endorsed on the grant, the power to make interim orders where immediate assistance was required surely could not depend on a grant. The court was therefore able to make an order for reasonable financial provision under the Act even though there was as yet no grant of representation.
JUDGMENT HHJ JOHNS KC: [1] This case concerns the estate of Sharon Marcia Antonio McBean (Sharon) who died aged 53 on 11 February 2016. Ryan Antonio (Ryan) brings this claim for reasonable financial provision out of Sharon’s estate on the basis that he was treated as a child of the family or was being maintained …Continue reading "Antonio v Williams & anr [2023] WTLR 1"