Analysis
The claimant had made an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (Act) for provision out of the estate of Harcharan Singh Dhaliwal (deceased) who died on 7 June 2009. The question had arisen, as a preliminary issue, whether the claimant was a person who ‘during the whole of the period of two years immediately before the date when the deceased died… was living (a) in the same household as the deceased, and (b) as the… wife of the deceased’ within the meaning of s1(1A) of the Act. The claimant and the deceased became engaged, shortly after meeting, in June 2005. After initially spending time together at the claimant’s flat they lived together as man and wife from July to September 2006 at the deceased’s flat at 33 Sandown Close, Hounslow. After this was vacated, it was not until July 2007 when they were able to live together in another of the deceased’s flats at 42 Solway Close. They stayed there until April 2009 when they moved to another flat at 26 Solway Close which they purchased together and where they lived until the deceased’s death. It was accepted that the claimant was living in the same household as the deceased and as his wife for a continuous period of one year and 49 weeks immediately prior to his death. The defendants, however, did not accept that the claimant was living in the same household as the deceased during the whole of the period of two years immediately before his death as required by the Act. On 1 September 2011 Judge Powles QC held in the Brentford County Court that the claimant satisfied the statutory criteria – he had found that the relationship had begun before they moved into 42 Solway Close and had been in existence for at least a year during which they were together whenever they could consistent with the problems in their lives connected with accommodation and the perceived needs of the deceased’s family. The defendants then appealed successfully to the High Court and the matter was remitted to Judge Powles QC to reconsider his decision in the light of that appeal judgment and of further submissions by the parties without further evidence. Judge Powles QC, in a second judgment dated 23 May 2013, clarified and confirmed his first judgment, explaining that a failure to prove exactly where the couple were living or cohabiting did not prohibit a finding that the relationship continued in full measure – a relationship which met the statutory requirements of the Act and thus encompassed being part of the same household, though not necessarily living under the same roof. The defendants appealed.
Held (dismissing the appeal)
It was clear from the Court of Appeal decision In re Dix (deceased) [2004] that the concept of parties living together in the same household was a familiar one from other areas of statutory law. For example, in the context of larceny, husband and wife were held to be living together not only when they were residing together in the same house but also when they were living in different places. The relevant word was ‘household’; not ‘house’, and it would be sufficient, though temporarily separated, if they were tied by a subsisting relationship. The test was encapsulated in the questions: (i) whether there was a subsisting relationship creating a tie between the parties, evidenced not simply by their living under the same roof but by the public and private acknowledgement of their mutual society and the mutual protection and support that bound them together; and, if so, (ii) whether that relationship had irretrievably broken down or, rather, was merely suspended, with any interruption being transitory. The judge was entitled, on the facts, to conclude that the parties’ settled relationship, which had begun prior to the disputed period, continued until the deceased’s death.
JUDGMENT BARLING J Introduction [1] This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgment of His Honour Judge Powles QC in Brentford County Court on 23 May 2013 (the second judgment). In that judgment the learned judge found in favour of the claimant on a preliminary issue. That preliminary issue was tried in the …Continue reading "Kaur v Dhaliwal & anr [2014] EWHC 1991 (Ch)"