Clarke v Peterkin & Ors

Under section 2(2) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, reasonable financial provision means provision which it would be reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to receive for maintenance.

An appellate court should not interfere with the first-instance assessment where the correct statutory question was asked, unless the conclusion was against the weight of the evidence or irrational because irrelevant matters were considered or relevant matters omitted. Complaints about subsequent trust administration raise a separate issue and cannot establish an appeal.

Mrs Josephine Margaret Clarke, a daughter of the deceased, applied under section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for financial provision from her mother’s estate. The estate was held on discretionary trust, and Mrs Clarke contended that her resources were inadequate and that her sisters had been treated more favourably.

District Judge Davies dismissed the application on 29 February 2000, finding that reasonable provision had been made. Mrs Clarke sought permission to appeal, an extension of time, permission to adduce new evidence and a stay. The central issues were whether the statutory assessment was legally or irrationally flawed and whether complaints about the trustees’ later conduct could be raised on appeal.

Permission to appeal refused. The application for an extension of time was granted, but the applications for a stay and for admission of new evidence were dismissed. There was no order for costs.

1. Lady Justice Arden held that section 2(2) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 required consideration of what provision was reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant’s maintenance. The issue was not whether the deceased had treated her daughters equally or fairly.
2. The district judge had asked the correct question and had considered the applicant’s resources, the trust income and capital, the available provision, and relevant evidence concerning her financial circumstances. His conclusion that reasonable provision had been made was not against the weight of the evidence.
3. An appellate challenge to that evaluative conclusion would require a proper basis for review, such as a conclusion contrary to the evidence or an irrational exercise of discretion through reliance on irrelevant matters or failure to consider relevant factors. No such error was shown, and there was no real prospect of success.
4. The new evidence concerned allegations that the trustees had not paid all sums available or had failed to provide information about the trust. Those matters required a separate inquiry into the trustees’ conduct and trust management. They fell outside the appeal and could not provide a reasonable prospect of success.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 March 2001, the application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The court also dismissed the applications for a stay and admission of new evidence, while extending time.
2. Chichester County Court: District Judge Davies dismissed Mrs Clarke’s application under section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 on 29 February 2000.