In a case decision ironically handed down in the wake of Valentine’s Day last week, a widow who was left nothing in her husband’s will following a 66-year marriage, was successful in pressing for her fair share of his estate.

Mrs Harbans Kaur (the Claimant) made her claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act). She was 83 years old and her only income was state benefits of just under £12,000 per annum, despite her husband (the Deceased) leaving an estate of over £1 million. He had intended to pass his estate solely down the male line.

Sitting in the Family Division of the High Court, the Judge Mr Justice Peel, described this as “the clearest possible case” in concluding that reasonable financial provision had not been made by the Deceased for the Claimant and ruled that Mrs Kaur should receive 50 percent of the net value of the estate.

1975 Act Claims

A claim under the 1975 Act can be brought by a certain category of claimants, including surviving spouses (in a marriage or civil partnership) and children as well as anyone who immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased.

In these claims, the 1975 Act requires the court to consider two questions:

  1. Does the will fail to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant?

  2. If so, what should the financial provision be?

In deciding these questions, the court considers a number of factors listed in the 1975 Act as follows:

  1. The financial resources and needs of the applicant;

  2. The financial resources and needs of any other applicant;

  3. The financial resources and needs of the beneficiaries;

  4. Any obligations and responsibilities of the deceased towards any applicant and any beneficiary;

  5. The size and nature of the estate of the deceased;

  6. Any physical or mental disability of any applicant or beneficiary;

  7. Any other matter, including conduct, which the court may consider relevant.

For claims by spouses the court will also consider:

  1. The age of the applicant and the length of the marriage/civil partnership;

  2. The contribution made by the applicant to the welfare of the family of the deceased including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;

  3. The provision the applicant might reasonably have expected to receive if on the day the deceased died the marriage were terminated by divorce rather than death. This is often referred to as the “divorce cross check” and generally a surviving spouse should not be worse off as widow as compared to a divorcee.

The Claim

In this case, by the time of the Deceased’s death the Claimant and the Deceased had been married for 66 years. The estate was valued at around £1.9 million and all of the wealth had been built up during the marriage.

The Deceased left the entirety of his estate in equal shares to his two sons who were also his named executors. The matrimonial home was an asset of the estate and the Claimant had been left nothing.

Interestingly, the Claimant’s claim was expressly stated to be for half of the value of the estate since she said this amount would meet her needs. It was served on her two sons who were the Defendants to the claim. One of her sons did not oppose her claim. The other son (with whom the Claimant’s relationship had deteriorated) did not respond to the claim despite being validly served.

Comment

This appears to be an example of a very straightforward spouse claim under the 1975 Act - there could really be no doubt that the Claimant had not been left reasonable financial provision under the will. The decision highlighted the 66-year marriage to which the Claimant had made an equal contribution, yet she had been left with “next to nothing”.

However, it is important to be aware that all claims under the 1975 Act, including those by surviving spouses, will be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case in question. It is rare for a spouse to have been left with absolutely no provision and often there would need to be a more detailed consideration of whether what a spouse has been left amounts to reasonable financial provision.

While in this case the Claimant had limited her claim to 50 percent of the estate (and there is often an expectation that that a surviving spouse might receive 50 percent) this is not a fixed limit and for some spouses there is the possibility of seeking a share greater than 50 percent. It depends on the particular circumstances including the value of the estate and the claimant’s financial needs.

This case is a useful reminder of the wide discretion the court has in how such claims are determined. These claims are issued as Part 8 claims which provides that where there are no issues of fact, then the claim will be determined on the written evidence. This claim was decided without hearing oral evidence. The court considered the claim to be undefended and made a decision summarily on the basis of the written evidence of the Claimant.