Analysis
By a will dated 7 July 2015 Stanley Nahajec (‘deceased’) left the whole of his estate valued at £265,710 to the defendant whom he appointed as sole executor. The deceased died on 19 July 2015 and a grant of probate to the defendant was issued on 15 October 2015. The claimant, who was one of three adult children of the deceased, brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘Act’) on 12 April 2016. One of her half siblings, Mark Nahajec, similarly made a claim under the act which was settled by a payment of £22,000 though his circumstances differed from those of the claimant in that he was unable to work by virtue of ill health and disability. The other half sibling, Philip Scott Nahajec, made no claim under the act. The deceased explained his reasoning for making no provision for either of his sons or daughter in an accompanying note to the effect that he had not seen or heard from any of them for the last 18 years and that they were sufficiently independent of means not to require any provisions from him.
Held (allowing the claim):
There were four key features of the operation of the act, which were set out by Lord Hughes, JSC in Ilott v The Blue Cross & others. Firstly, the will or rules of intestacy applied unless a specific application was made to, and acceded to by, the court and a specific order for provision was made. Secondly, only a limited class of persons could make such an application; namely spouses and partners, former spouses and partners, children and those who have actually been maintained by the deceased. Thirdly, all but spouses and civil partners could claim only what was needed for their maintenance. Fourthly, the test of reasonable financial provisions was objective. In the context of a claim by a child of the deceased, ‘reasonable financial provision’ meant such provision as would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance. The word ‘maintenance’ connoted only payments which directly or indirectly enabled the applicant in the future to discharge the costs of daily living at whatever standard of living was appropriate. This could extend to the payment of existing debts as that might enable the applicant to continue to carry on a profit making business or profession. An order could be made by way of lump sum which essentially reflected a capitalisation of maintenance. The act did not require a determination of whether the deceased acted unreasonably in formulating his will in the way in which he did but rather whether, looked at objectively, his disposition or lack of disposition produces an unreasonable result in that it did not make any, or any greater, provision for the applicant. The facts of this case were very similar to those which applied in the case of Ilott v The Blue Cross & others although the size of the estate was considerably smaller. Having taken into account all of the factors to which s3 of the act directed that regard must be had, it was clear that the will made by the deceased did not make reasonable financial provisions for the claimant. An award that simply enabled the claimant to clear her debts would be too low as living within her means would be a fairly frugal existence and not provide her with any scope to meet any expenses that would be necessary for her to improve her position. In particular, the claimant’s aspirations to become a veterinary nurse was a factor to which regard must be had and, taking all of them into account, the financial provision that would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the claimant to receive for her maintenance duly capitalised was £30,000.
Introduction [1] This is a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The claimant, Miss Elena Alicia Nahajec seeks financial provision out of the estate of her deceased father, Stanley Nahajec who died on 19 July 2015 having made a will on 7 July 2015. By his will, the deceased left …Continue reading "Nahajec v Fowle [2017] WTLR 1071"