Analysis
The deceased died in January 2008 and letters of administration were granted later that month. The deceased’s death was unexpected, and within a year of her remarriage to the defendant A, which had revoked her previous will leaving her property to her previous spouse and her children. The claimant, L, a son of the deceased, was 17 when the deceased died, and had some mental health difficulties. He was permitted to continue to live in the deceased’s home with his brother and A for some years, until 2014. L was an in-patient in a mental hospital for a time during 2015, and first sought legal advice about the deceased’s estate in June 2016.
A had in the meantime provided some financial assistance to L, and spent his own resources maintaining the deceased’s former house.
L issued a claim under the Isle of Man Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1982 (materially identical to the English Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975) in April 2017, and applied for permission to bring such claim almost 9 years after the 6-month time limit prescribed by s4 of the 1982 Act. This question was determined as a preliminary issue.
Held, granting permission the claim:
- 1) The Manx court should apply the principles derived from the English cases on the English 1975 Act, in particular the six factors identified in Re Salmon, viz. (i) that the onus was on the claimant to establish sufficient grounds to extent time; (ii) that the time limit was substantive not merely procedural, and a substantial case must be shown that it is just a proper to extend time; (iii) how promptly and in what circumstances the application for extension was made; (iv) whether there had been negotiations between the parties within the time limit; (v) whether the estate had been distributed; (vi) whether the claimant was left without redress against others (eg his legal advisers).
- 2) The court further referred to the dictum in Stock v Brown that the burden on the claimant after a long delay is a heavy one, and to the judgment in Berger v Berger that it is also relevant to consider whether the claimant had a arguable case under the Act if permission were given.
- 3) Despite the delay being lengthy in the extreme, permission would be granted for L to bring his claim, given the extenuating circumstances including L’s youth and mental health difficulties, the fact that the estate remained intact in A’s hands, that A suffered no substantial prejudice, that L had an arguable case for further provision to be made for him, and that L would not seem to have any redress against others if permission were refused.
Continue reading "Lloyd v Ayres [2018] WTLR 521"