Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
In the case of Ilott v Mitson & Others [2014] EWHC 542 (Fam) a case on the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 , the Claimant, during her teenage years left home, married and had five children. Her mother, Melita Jackson, the deceased, disapproved of her situation and consequently they became estranged and never reconciled despite attempts at doing so.
The Claimant and her husband resided in a house belonging to a Housing Association and were receiving state benefits. The husband was self-employed earning just £4,164, child benefit was £1,878, tax credits £8,112 from the husband’s working/child tax credits, £900 expenses from the husband’s earnings with a notional figure of £240 paid to the Claimant for book-keeping in respect of the husband’s earning and £5,092 housing and council tax benefit making a total income for 2006/2007 of £20,386.00.
In the first proceedings in 2007 brought by the Claimant against the personal representatives of the deceased and the three charities being the beneficiaries, District Judge Million, believed that the estrangement was largely due to the deceased but that the Claimant and her husband had contributed to the situation.
He held that even though the daughter was an adult she could still ask for a reasonable provision to be made to her under the will and that her mother, the deceased, had unreasonably excluded her from her will particularly in light of her daughter’s very difficult financial situation.
The deceased had in letters written in 1984 and 2002, explained why she had excluded the claimant, her daughter, from her will but the Judge held there were factual inaccuracies in them and because of this supported her daughter’s claim.
He made reference to the following cases:
Judgment of Oliver J in re Coventry 1981 where a person can dispose of property as she pleases:
- “not just that the deceased acted unreasonably, but that, looked at objectively, his disposition or lack of disposition produces an unreasonable result in that it does not make any or any greater provision for the applicant – and that means, in the case of an applicant other than the spouse, for that applicant’s maintenance.”
Espinosa v Bourke (1999)
- “the fact that is in favour of his claim for financial provision may not be of much weight in the scales … however … the case should not be approached upon a preconceived notion that there was a heavy burden on applicants of full age. In these days where persons without qualifications find it difficult to find employment, the court should not approach the question of what is the appropriate maintenance with any preconceived view. All the circumstances of the applicant must be considered.”
The Judge said it was an “unreasonable result”, the Claimant needed financial help. He said:-
- “However, I also accept that [the Claimant] has not had any expectancy of any provision for herself. [The Claimant and her husband] have managed their life over many years without any expectancy that [the Claimant] would receive anything. That does not mean that the result is a reasonable one in the straitened financial circumstances of the family. But it does mean, in my judgment, that any provision must now be limited.”
The Judge said a proper sum would be £50,000.
The Claimant appealed on quantum with a cross-appeal from the respondents on the Judge’s ruling and on quantum.
The appeal was before Judge Eleanor King who allowed the respondents appeal which meant that the Claimant’s appeal failed. The Court of appeal allowed the Claimant’s appeal which was given to another High Court Judge.
During the Appeal it was argued that the 1998 letter, which had been available at the hearing date, revealed that the deceased, on the Claimant’s father’s death, received a large sum of money which she used to decrease her mortgage. The property had been owned by the Claimant’s father and passed to his widow on his death. Counsel for the Claimant, John Collins, said that the Judge in error had made the assumption that the deceased had experienced hardship when left to bring up her daughter. Counsel made reference to the case of Callaghan 1985:
- “However, I also accept that [the Claimant] has not had any expectancy of any provision for herself. [The Claimant and her husband] have managed their life over many years without any expectancy that [the Claimant] would receive anything. That does not mean that the result is a reasonable one in the straitened financial circumstances of the family. But it does mean, in my judgment, that any provision must now be limited.”
Mrs Justice Parker stated that the Judge’s award to the Claimant was to help her improve her financial means and to spend as she wanted to. On looking at the aspects of the case she could not say that the Judge was wrong in any way particularly in respect of the Claimant’s “straightened circumstances” within which they have lived for years and which did not justify an amount which improved their finances. The Claimant’s argument was that there is no benefit to her if her housing need is not achieved by the increase of the award to her. Mrs Justice Parker overall view was that the Judge could not be said to be wrong and therefore did not allow the Appeal.
A successful claim brought by an independent adult child may only result in an award of a small proportion of the estate, even when the Court is aware of the claimant’s poor circumstances.
It does not mean that the decreased wishes are going to be ignored by the court.
The deceased wishes will still be a key consideration and where there is no expectation of an inheritance this will impact upon the amount awarded.
The principle is kept that a testator is in the main free to leave his
property to whoever he or she wishes.
The case has been the subject of an appeal.