The recent case of Kaur v Singh [2023] is not a surprising judgment as it seeks to align “reasonable financial provision” for a surviving spouse or civil partner to the maintenance provisions under matrimonial law on a divorce.
Facts of the case
In Kaur v Singh, the claimant was an 83 year old widow who challenged her late husband’s Will. The deceased had left his entire estate to the male family line. The claimant challenged the Will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, making a claim for “reasonable financial provision”.
The claimant had been married to her late husband for 66 years and during the marriage had seven children. She had worked in the family clothing business without receiving a salary and had no financial interest in the business or the family home or any of the properties her late husband had owned.
The deceased left all his estate to his two sons because he “wished to leave his estate solely down the male line”.
The judge had to decide whether a nil inheritance represented “reasonable financial provision” for the claimant in all the circumstances of the case. In reaching his decision, the judge had to consider the factors listed in section 3 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 which includes the size and nature of the estate; the financial resources and needs both present and future of a person making a claim and also the beneficiaries; any obligations that the deceased had towards the person making a claim or a beneficiary; any mental or physical disability of the claimant or beneficiaries and any other factors that the court considers to be relevant.
Where the claimant is a spouse or civil partner, the court will also consider the age of the claimant, the duration of marriage or civil partnership and the contribution to the welfare of the family.
The Court’s decision
The judge considered and took into account the size of the estate, the claimant’s financial circumstances, health and crucially the length of the marriage and her contribution to the welfare of the family and had little difficulty deciding that her late husband’s Will did not make “reasonable financial provision” for her and awarded the claimant 50% of the deceased’s £1.2 million estate.
In reaching this decision, the judge adopted a very pragmatic and joined up approach by comparing what the claimant could have expected to receive had the marriage ended in divorce to ensure that the claimant was not left in a worse position. Key among the factors that the court considered was that the claimant was financially dependant on the deceased, she had made a substantial contribution to the marriage and her husband’s wealth had been built up during the marriage.
All these type of cases raise issues of testamentary freedom and the courts have to balance this principle with the obligation of the deceased under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 to make “reasonable financial provision” for his or her dependants.
Do you have a claim?
If you are widowed or a surviving civil partner, including a former spouse or civil partner of the deceased (but have not entered into a subsequent marriage or civil partnership) and believe that the deceased’s Will does not make reasonable financial provision for you, please do not hesitate to get in contact with us to see if you can make a claim against the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
