Analysis
Kevin McIntosh (the deceased) died intestate on 13 September 2010 at the age of 34. He left a net estate of £333,564. He also left two pension scheme funds that were nominated, one in full to his estranged wife (the defendant) and the other as to 70% to the defendant and as to 10% to each of his younger brother Brian McIntosh (the claimant), his mother and his sister.
The claimant stated that the deceased had been maintaining him immediately prior to his death as he gave him monthly payments of £200 (which he spent on alcohol, cigarettes and petrol for his car). He had received this contribution since he was 16 (he was 26 at the date of death). The claimant suffered from a treatable depressive disorder for which he never sought treatment. His poor work ethic meant he was regularly unemployed, however, when he was employed the deceased’s monthly payments ceased. The deceased also bought the claimant’s clothes, paid for his holidays and for his car and had offered him a home in the future. The claimant’s evidence was that he gave nothing in return for this support. Witness evidence confirmed that the claimant relied on his mother for his board and lodgings and only paid rent during his short periods of employment which had generally been arranged by the deceased. The claimant did not consider that reasonable financial provision for his maintenance had been made for him as a dependant of the deceased, and he brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Act).
The defendant had moved out of the matrimonial home after approximately two years of marriage and five months prior to the deceased’s death. The defendant was a finance manager and capable of earning a good salary. Her evidence was that the deceased was not maintaining the claimant as the payments weren’t regular, and any payments made were in return for dog walking and other jobs. The clothes were hand-me-downs. From the defendant’s oral evidence, it was apparent that the deceased would not necessarily have been open about the support he provided to the claimant, due to the defendant’s low opinion of the claimant.
Held:
- (1) On the evidence before the court it was accepted that monthly payments were made to the claimant, except during his periods of employment. The money was given for social activities rather than treatment, training or food and board. It was apparent that the deceased did not intend this payment to continue for the rest of the claimant’s life, but only until he found employment.
- (2) On considering the test laid down in s1(3) of the Act against this evidence, it was determined that the money was not given for full valuable consideration nor could not be considered to be a ‘substantial contribution’.
- (3) Smoking, drinking and other social activities are not ‘reasonable needs’ or costs of living as intended by the Act (Re Dennis [1981]).
- (4) In such a claim, there needs to be evidence that there was a relationship of dependency which was accepted by both the deceased and the applicant (Baynes v Hedger [2008]). The evidence before the court did not show that such a relationship existed on either side.
- (5) The other payments to the claimant were in the nature of one off gifts. The future promise of support, such as the claimant being invited to live with the deceased, was an unimplemented promise and irrelevant to the question of maintenance (Baynes v Hedger [2009]).
- (6) Application dismissed as the claimant did not fall into a class of person entitled to bring a claim. Even if he had been entitled to apply, reasonable provision had been made.
Continue reading "McIntosh v McIntosh 1LU01921"