In re Jennings, decd

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, an adult child who can adequately maintain himself must show a current special circumstance, commonly a moral obligation, before an estate’s failure to provide maintenance is unreasonable. Obligations and responsibilities under section 3(1)(d) are, as a general rule, those existing immediately before death. The Act does not revive a parent’s long-expired and unperformed childhood obligations, nor may section 3(1)(g) be used to achieve that result.

For a non-spouse, provision must be required for maintenance. Maintenance can extend beyond bare subsistence, but excludes a sum desirable merely for general benefit or welfare. A financially comfortable applicant who has not shown an inability to meet ordinary living expenses or mortgage payments has not established such a requirement.

The deceased’s adult son applied for reasonable financial provision from an estate worth about £300,000. The deceased had made no provision for him, although he had failed to support or contact him during the son’s childhood. The son was, however, able-bodied, financially self-sufficient and living comfortably through his businesses.

In the Family Division, Wall J held that the deceased’s unperformed childhood obligations could be considered under section 3(1)(d), or alternatively as another relevant matter. He awarded a lump sum of £40,000 towards reducing the son’s mortgage. The residuary charitable beneficiaries appealed.

The central issues were whether historic, unperformed parental obligations could establish a present claim for maintenance and whether the son had shown that further provision was reasonably required for his maintenance.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Nourse LJ gave the leading judgment. Henry LJ and Sir John May agreed that Wall J’s order for a £40,000 lump sum had to be discharged and the application dismissed.

2. Section 3(1)(d) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 requires the court, as a general rule, to consider obligations and responsibilities existing immediately before the deceased’s death. It does not revive obligations to support a child during minority which had long expired, even if they had never been performed. A past failure may matter where it has created a responsibility which remains current at death, but that was not this case.

3. Nor could the deceased’s historic conduct be treated as an “other matter” under section 3(1)(g). The Act provides maintenance, not retrospective reparation for a parent’s past misconduct where it has no continuing effect on the applicant’s financial position. The mere relationship of father and adult son was insufficient. Applying the principles in Re Coventry, deceased [1980] Ch 461, a self-supporting adult child requires a special circumstance, typically a moral obligation, before the first question can be answered in his favour.

4. The court also upheld the appeal on the separate question of maintenance. For a non-spouse, section 1(2)(b) requires provision that is reasonably required for maintenance. Following the guidance in Re Coventry, deceased [1980] Ch 461 and approving the explanation in Re Dennis, deceased [1981] 2 All ER 140, maintenance covers future recurring living costs at an appropriate standard. It does not extend to a payment desirable only for general benefit or welfare.

5. The evidence showed that the son and his family had a comfortable standard of living, with no demonstrated future financial difficulty. He had not shown that he could not meet his mortgage or ordinary living expenses. The mortgage-based award was therefore unsupported by a proven maintenance need. Re Callaghan, deceased [1985] Fam 1 did not assist: its applicant had shown a real need arising from the burden of a mortgage, unlike the present applicant.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Unanimously allowed the residuary charities’ appeal, discharged the £40,000 payment order and dismissed the adult son’s application.
• High Court (Family Division): Wall J held that the deceased’s unperformed childhood obligations could be considered and awarded the son £40,000 for maintenance.