Goenka v Goenka & Ors

A nomination made under a statutory pension scheme is made in accordance with an enactment for the purposes of section 8(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, even where the relevant rules are contained in secondary legislation. The nominated benefit is therefore treated as part of the deceased’s net estate for the purposes of that Act.

For a spouse, reasonable financial provision is not confined to maintenance. The court must assess all statutory factors objectively, using facts known at the hearing. The hypothetical divorce outcome is a cross-check, not a complete ancillary-relief exercise. A benefit arising only on death may be relevant to the Inheritance Act assessment, though not necessarily to the divorce hypothesis.

The claimant, the widow of Dr Nirupam Goenka, sought financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Her husband had nominated his father to receive a £201,000 NHS death-in-service benefit under the National Health Service Pension Scheme Regulations 1995. The claimant argued that the nomination fell within section 8(1), so that the benefit formed part of the deceased’s net estate.

The defendants disputed that construction and contended that the will already made reasonable financial provision. The central issues were whether the statutory pension benefit was part of the net estate, whether the will made reasonable provision for the widow, and from which fund any award should be paid.

1. Statutory nomination. The nomination under the National Health Service Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 was made pursuant to powers conferred by the Superannuation Act 1972. In the context of section 8(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, “enactment” was not limited to primary legislation. The statutory instrument therefore fell within the provision, and the £201,000 benefit was treated as part of the deceased’s net estate.
2. Reasonable financial provision. The court had to assess the claim objectively by reference to the facts known at the hearing and the matters identified in sections 3(1) and 3(2). The claimant’s spouse’s claim was not limited to maintenance. Her age, the 15-year marriage, her contribution to the family, her resources, the children’s position, the size of the estate and the deceased’s obligations were all relevant.
3. The hypothetical divorce provision was of limited weight. It was useful as a cross-check, but it did not require a detailed ancillary-relief calculation. Assets received only because of death were relevant to the Inheritance Act exercise, although they were not part of the hypothetical divorce assets.
4. The claimant was adequately provided for in relation to income, housing and maintenance. However, the discretionary nature of the proposed £60,000 provision created a real risk that she would receive nothing. She was therefore entitled to £67,670, representing the deceased’s bank and building-society balances and premium bonds, rather than merely a discretionary expectation.
5. The award was to be paid from the death-in-service benefit, which the deceased had intended to form part of the fund available for his children. The claimant was entitled to no further award. Her costs were payable from that benefit on the standard basis; the Official Solicitor’s costs were payable on the indemnity basis, subject to the stated order of priority.