Hope & Anor v Knight

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975, reasonable financial provision is assessed by balancing all relevant circumstances, resources and competing claims. An adult child must establish a claim for maintenance, supported by circumstances going beyond blood relationship alone, although a moral obligation is not invariably required. Delay is a material factor, particularly where a spouse seeks capital or maintenance after a long separation and the deceased can no longer explain the historic position. The court makes a value judgment at the hearing date. It does not redistribute an estate merely because greater provision might appear desirable.

Julie Hope, the deceased’s separated wife, and Laura Hope, his adult daughter, applied under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision from Michael Hope’s estate. The estate had passed principally to Christina Knight, Michael’s longstanding partner and executrix. Julie relied on her financial needs and the historic separation arrangements. Laura relied on her vulnerability, limited earning capacity and relationship with her father. The central issues were whether the will failed to make reasonable provision for either claimant and, if so, what order should be made.

1. The claims were dismissed. The court assessed the position at the hearing date and made a value judgment, rather than exercising a discretion, after considering the matters identified in section 3 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
2. For a spouse, the statutory concept of reasonable financial provision is not limited to maintenance. Nevertheless, the long delay after separation was highly material. Julie had received substantial capital under the 1991 separation agreement, had taken independent advice about further assets, and had made no further claim during Michael’s lifetime. It would be unjust to make a capital adjustment after nineteen years when Michael was unavailable to explain the position. The same delay materially weakened any maintenance claim.
3. For an adult child, provision is limited to maintenance. Maintenance is wider than bare subsistence but does not extend to anything reasonably desirable for general welfare. Ordinarily, the claimant must show circumstances giving rise to a claim beyond blood relationship alone, although an adult child need not invariably establish a moral obligation or special circumstances.
4. Laura’s income, pension, earning capacity and other resources were sufficient for her needs. Her disabilities and limited prospects did not make the absence of further provision unreasonable. A parent has no general obligation to house an adult child, and no such obligation arises on death.
5. The court also considered Christina’s needs and resources, her contribution to the shared home, the size and nature of the estate, and the competing claims. The estate was substantial but limited once the principal home and liabilities were taken into account. Michael was entitled reasonably to prioritise Christina’s continued occupation of the home.