Analysis
The applicant, Mr Warner, was the unmarried partner of the deceased. Before her death they had lived together for 19 years at a property in Tewkesbury. Mr Warner continued to live in this property after her death. Mrs Lewis, the daughter of the deceased, brought a claim in the County Court for possession of the property and for the return of certain items under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Mr Warner defended this claim, and made a separate application for relief under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the 1975 Act’). It was agreed by the parties that he came within the definitions set out at ss1(1)(ba) and (1A) of the 1975 Act. At first instance, Mr Recorder Gardner QC decided the deceased’s will did fail to make reasonable financial provision for Mr Warner, and to remedy this the property should be transferred out of the deceased’s estate to Mr Warner, in exchange for Mr Warner making payment of £385,000. A joint expert had initially valued the property at £340,000, and this higher figure represented a later valuation obtained by Mrs Lewis. The Recorder’s decision was upheld on appeal by Newey J. Mrs Lewis appealed on two main grounds: a) Mr Warner had failed to establish that he needed financial provision for his maintenance from the estate, only that he would like to remain living in the property. b) There was no jurisdiction under the 1975 Act to make an order in which value did not pass from the estate to the applicant. Paying more than the market value for a property could not be regarded as reasonable financial provision. Mrs Lewis also sought mesne profits for the period prior to the transfer of the property to Mr Warner.
Held:
1) The Recorder was correct to conclude that the deceased’s will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the deceased. Maintenance is a broad concept, and was clear that the deceased maintained Mr Warner by providing him with a home. He may have had no expectation of that maintenance continuing, but an objective evaluation of his needs indicated that that it ought to do so.
2) As a matter of law, the Recorder was entitled to order that the property be transferred in exchange for its full value. It is not a requirement of the 1975 Act that, in making provision for an applicant’s maintenance, consideration should move away from the estate.
3) Not ordering Mr Warner to pay mesne profits was a sensible and pragmatic solution in the circumstances, and the Recorder’s decision (which Newey J had expressly agreed with) should be upheld.
JUDGMENT SIR GEOFFREY VOS: Introduction [1] This is the first time that an application by an unmarried partner under the amended subsections 1(1)(ba) and 1(1A) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 (the ‘1975 Act’) has reached this court. This appeal also raises the questions of whether the court has jurisdiction under …Continue reading "Blackwell Deceased [2018] WTLR 1243"