Batstone v Batstone [2022] WTLR 835

WTLR Issue: Autumn 2022 #188

JENINE BATSTONE

V

SAMANTHA ANN JULIA BATSTONE

Analysis

The claim was brought pursuant to s1(1)(c) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against the estate of John Nicholas Batstone Deceased (the deceased). The claimant was the deceased’s adult daughter by his first marriage. The defendant was the deceased’s widow and executor.

The deceased died on 31 March 2019, domiciled in England and Wales and leaving a will dated 2 December 2017. The total net value of the estate was £326,121, consisting of:

  1. (i) a 50% share in a residential property, co-owned with the defendant and valued at £225,000, which was given to the defendant for life and in remainder to her two sons in equal shares absolutely; and
  2. (ii) cash and shares valued at £101,121, which were left to the defendant absolutely.

The claimant sought provision of £136,562, of which £100,000 was claimed as capitalised maintenance for life, £16,562 was to cover debts, £10,000 was to buy a new car and £10,000 was to buy various items for the claimant’s home.

The claimant and the deceased had been estranged for the last 16 years of his life and he had not maintained her as an adult. The claimant asserted that the deceased’s conduct towards her had given rise to a moral obligation to maintain her, as he had abandoned her as a young girl and left her in poor financial circumstances all of her life. The claimant asserted she was left with low self-esteem and a feeling of worthlessness, due to the deceased’s lack of attention to her following his divorce from the claimant’s mother. The claimant had a number of health difficulties. The claimant had net income of £32,035 odd net of housing costs, equivalent to a gross salary of c£42,500 per annum which exceeded the national average.

Held:

Dismissing the claim, the excess of the claimant’s expenditure over her income was attributable to the claimant’s unreasonable conduct. The claimant had sufficient income to meet her reasonable needs. Provision would not be ordered with respect to the effects of extravagant spending. The claimant’s debts were limited to £3,638.88, which could be repaid out of income. At their highest the claimant’s reasonable needs, including those debts, totalled £10,000, which could be largely or wholly met from income within a relatively short period of time.

The deceased’s conduct towards the claimant was not the primary or significant cause of her difficulties. It did not give rise to any moral or other obligation to make provision for her and so the claim failed at the first hurdle. Necessitous circumstances were not enough.

JUDGMENT HHJ EVANS-GORDON: [1] This claim is brought pursuant to s1(1)(c) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the Act’) against the estate of John Nicholas Batstone Deceased (‘the deceased’). Jenine Batstone (‘the claimant’) is the deceased’s adult daughter while Samantha Ann Julia Batstone (‘the defendant’) is the deceased’s widow and executor. …
This content is only available to members.

Counsel Details

Mark Blackett-Ord (5 Stone Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2A 3XT, tel 020 7242 6201, email clerks@5sblaw.com), instructed by Mitchells Solicitors (2 Peckitt Street, Clifford Street, York YO1 9SF, tel 01904 623751, email enquiries@mitchellssolicitors.co.uk) for the claimant.

Cameron Stocks (Gatehouse Chambers, 1 Lady Hale Gate, Gray’s Inn, London WC1X 8BS, tel 020 7242 2523, email cameron.stocks@gatehouselaw.co.uk), instructed by Lynch Hall & Hornsby (23 Peterborough Road, Harrow HA1 2BD, tel 020 8864 0722) for the defendant.

Legislation Referenced

  • Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, ss1, 3