Kaur v Dhaliwal & Anor

For the purposes of section 1(1A) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, living in the same household does not require continuous residence under one roof. The court must assess the relationship as a whole. A claimant may qualify where the parties’ settled relationship is shown by their mutual society, public and private acknowledgment, and mutual support. The court must decide whether any separation ended the relationship or was merely transitory.

The claimant sought provision from the estate of the deceased under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The preliminary issue was whether she had lived in the same household as the deceased and as his wife throughout the two years immediately preceding his death.

The Brentford County Court decided the issue in her favour. After an earlier appeal and remittal, the county court again found for her. The defendants appealed, arguing that an eight- to nine-month period without established common residence prevented satisfaction of the statutory requirement.

1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Section 1(1A) requires the relationship to be assessed as a whole. The relevant concept is a household, not merely a house. The necessary tie may be shown by public and private acknowledgment, mutual society, and mutual protection and support.
3. The key question is whether the relationship has irretrievably broken down or whether the separation is transitory, with the relationship remaining recognised as subsisting. Continuous occupation of the same premises is not indispensable.
4. The judge was entitled to find that the parties’ qualifying relationship continued throughout the disputed period. Their separation arose from family circumstances, not a breakdown in their relationship. They continued working together, remained engaged with their families’ knowledge, spent about two weeks under the same roof, and later resumed permanent cohabitation.
5. The finding was open to the county court even though it could not identify where the deceased lived permanently during the disputed period. The remittal had allowed that conclusion after further submissions.

• High Court (Chancery Division): Appeal dismissed and the county court’s decision upheld.
• Brentford County Court: The preliminary issue was decided in favour of the claimant after remittal. An earlier decision in her favour had been allowed on appeal and remitted.