Analysis
The claimant daughter brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for provision out of the estate of her late father. The sole beneficiary of his estate was his widow, who was in residential care with severe health concerns, but who had been debarred from defending the proceedings by reason of non-compliance with earlier court orders. The claimant had been estranged from her parents since 2010 and had a number of health difficulties which made her unable to work. She lived in rented accommodation with two children, whose father visited them daily but did not cohabit because of the claimant’s psychiatric issues. The estate comprised of £827,000 of assets held jointly by the deceased and the widow, and £142,000 of solely-owned cash.
The claimant sought a fund of between £375,000-£500,000 to purchase a home, a further £19,800 for psychological therapy and further capital sums for replacement of cars and white goods and to meet shortfalls in her income. In addition, the claimant had entered into a conditional fee agreement (CFA) with her solicitors which, if her claim succeeded, gave rise to an uplift liability of £48,175.
The issues for the court were:
- 1) Did the will make reasonable financial provision for the claimant?
- 2) If not, what reasonable financial provision ought to be made for the claimant?
- 3) Should the claimant’s liabilities under the CFA be taken into account?
Held:
The will did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant, who is in a position of real financial need and has severe health and psychological problems which prevent her from obtaining employment. The court bore in mind that she had been estranged from her parents for between 10 and 20 years and has had no financial support from them in that period. Nevertheless, the priority must be to ensure that sufficient funds are available to maintain the widow for the rest of her life.
An award to provide housing would be wrong in principle; the claimant’s priority was to get well again and it was to this end that the award would be directed, to fulfil the claimant’s income needs for three years. The award would consist of sums for ongoing therapy, to cover an income shortfall, for replacement of white goods, and for the deposit for a new rental property.
It is appropriate to consider the uplift payable under the CFA as part of the claimant’s financial needs – Bullock v Denton followed. The proposed award was not a large one, which did not permit much elasticity – Re Clarke distinguished. If no award was made in that respect, then the claimant’s needs would not be met, and she had no other means of funding the litigation. The sum of £16,750 would be added to the award.
Award accordingly.
JUDGMENT COHEN J: Introduction [1] I have been trying the Claimant’s (whom I shall call ‘C’) claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for provision from the estate of her late father. C is aged 50 and is the daughter of the deceased. [2] The other parties to the proceedings are …Continue reading "Re H [2020] WTLR 479"