Smith v Smith & Ors

Interim financial relief under section 5 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 requires convincing evidence of immediate financial need. An applicant must provide a sufficiently complete and reliable account of income, assets and available resources. Bare assertions, unexplained omissions and evasive answers may prevent the statutory threshold being met. A temporary right to occupy estate property should likewise be granted only where there is a clear and immediate need or a very good reason for doing so. Saving hotel expenses, without satisfactory evidence of need and intended residence, was insufficient.

The claimant, the widow of the deceased, challenged his later will on testamentary-capacity grounds and brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Pending trial, she sought £25,000 under section 5 and permission to occupy the deceased’s house. The probate claim appeared weak on the evidence, while the inheritance claim was more than faintly arguable. The central issues were whether she had established immediate financial need and whether residence in the house was justified pending determination of the proceedings.

1. The application for interim financial relief under section 5 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 was refused. The claimant had to establish immediate need for financial assistance. Her evidence did not provide a sufficiently clear or reliable picture of her means.
2. In an application of this kind, an applicant should provide convincing evidence of income, assets and available resources. Mere statements may be insufficient, particularly where bank accounts, property ownership or other sources of funds are unexplained. The claimant’s omissions, inconsistent account of loans and evasive answers in cross-examination materially weakened her case.
3. The claimant had not established that she lacked access to other assets or resources. Her ownership of a flat in Moscow, historic bank accounts and unexplained financial arrangements raised serious questions about non-disclosure.
4. The court assumed, without deciding, that it had jurisdiction to order interim occupation of the house. Such relief should be granted only where there is a clear and immediate need, or at least a very good reason for granting residence pending trial.
5. The claimant had not shown that she genuinely needed the house as a residence or intended to make it her home. Avoiding hotel bills for visits to England was insufficient, especially in light of the unsatisfactory disclosure of her means and the uncertainty about the duration of any residence.
6. Both applications therefore failed: no interim payment was ordered and no right of occupation was granted.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined an interim application in the High Court proceedings.