Bringing a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Act) has become more commonplace over recent years so it is useful to look at some recent cases about different categories of claimants who have made such claims.
What is a claim under the Act?
A claim may be made under the Act by certain people such as spouses including former spouses, civil partners, cohabitees, children and any person who was maintained by the deceased. The basis of the claim will be that a will or the effect of the intestacy rules did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant.
Claim by cohabitee
In the case of Banfield v Campbell [2018], Mr. Banfield had lived in the same house as the deceased for 13 years. The courts held that Mr. Banfied was a cohabitant of the deceased and he succeeded in bringing a claim under the Act.
Mr. Banfield sought the sale of the deceased’s home valued at £750,000 and a capital payment from the proceeds of £450,000 to enable him to buy a smaller flat in the area. However, because Mr. Banfield had £270,000 in capital of his own and surplus income after paying his expenses of living, the court therefore limited Mr. Banfield’s award to an interest for his life in half of the net proceeds of sale of the deceased house of about £350,000. This was to be used in or towards providing alternative accommodation for Mr. Banfield for his life. In addition, £20,000 was set aside in case the property to be purchased needed specific adaption for Mr. Banfield given his physical disabilities.
Claim by minor children
In the fairly recent case of Re R (deceased) J and another v S [2021], two minor children of the deceased successfully brought claims under the Act even though their father had ceased to have contact with them since 2014 and had sought to exclude his sons by an express statement in his will.
The two sons aged 15 and 16 when their father died in 2018 received nothing in their father’s Will. The deceased had divorced in 2012 and his contact with his two sons ceased in 2014. In his will, the deceased had expressly stated that no provision would be made for his two sons as his ex-wife had assumed sole responsibility for the two sons.
The two sons brought a claim against their father’s estate under the Act for reasonable financial provision. The estate was valued in a range between £519,081 and £720,481 depending on market volatility.
By the time the case got to trial, one son was at university and the other hoping to go to university.
The court awarded a lump sum payment of £117,962 to one of the sons and £68,022 to the other son.
This case demonstrates that despite a divorce and near-total breakdown in contact between the father and his sons, the father still bore a continuing responsibility for their maintenance.
Claim by adult children
In another recent case of Ball v Ball, claims were made under the Act by adult children of the deceased.
The three claimants had been excluded from the will of their late mother. Their father had died in 2004 and the mother in 2013. During their parents’ lives, the claimants had reported their father to the police for historical abuse and although many allegations were strongly denied, the father had admitted some of the charges in respect of two of the children.
The parents had left mirror wills and the father had died in 2004 and the mother in 2013.
A letter had accompanied the will signed by the parents expressing their annoyance that an agreement had been breached by these children in making unfounded allegations of abuse.
The claims under the Act were dismissed because whilst abuse was something to be taken into account, in this case the allegations of abuse had been made against their father not their mother and it was the mother’s will that was in question.
This case demonstrates the difficulties adult children face when bringing claims under the Act, even against the background of child abuse, and even with a conviction.
Another take away from this case is that, if a claim is made under the Act with abuse as a central issue, the claimant needs to make it very clear how that abuse affected the ultimate inheritance provision.
The claimants also claimed, in effect, that their mother did not have a sound memory of matters that had influenced her when making her will and therefore had make a mistake and lacked capacity to make her will. The court considered the evidence and rejected this claim.
If you have any questions about a claim under the Act or any issues related to inheritance, please do not hesitate to contact us as we can help with these kind of disputes or queries.
