Wright v Waters & Anor

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the court must make an objective value judgment by applying the statutory factors. An adult child need not establish a moral obligation or special circumstances, although those matters may be relevant. Conduct may outweigh financial need, ill health and other factors supporting an award. A proprietary estoppel requires a sufficiently clear assurance, reasonable reliance and sufficiently substantial detriment. In this case, vague references to inheritance, without reliance or detriment, were insufficient.

Patricia Wright claimed against her late mother’s estate on two bases. First, she alleged that assurances concerning family shops and a Spanish villa gave rise to proprietary estoppel. Secondly, as an adult daughter with financial and medical difficulties, she claimed reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

The executors relied principally on the claimant’s conduct, including her handling of £10,000 belonging to the deceased, hostile correspondence and prolonged estrangement. The court determined whether either claim was established and, if not, whether the will failed to make reasonable financial provision.

1. Proprietary estoppel. The elements identified in Thorner v Major were an assurance or representation, reliance and detriment. The assurance also had to be sufficiently clear and unequivocal, reliance reasonable, and detriment sufficiently substantial. The references to the claimant’s inheritance were vague and were not shown to have induced her work. No sufficient assurance, reliance or detriment was established. The proprietary estoppel claim therefore failed.
2. 1975 Act claim. The court applied a staged approach. It first considered whether the will failed to make reasonable provision, then whether any award should be made, and finally the amount. The assessment was objective and required a value judgment on all the section 3 factors.
3. For an adult child, reasonable financial provision means maintenance. An applicant need not prove a moral obligation or special circumstances, although an earning capacity may make success unlikely without some special circumstance. The court considered the claimant’s age, ill health, financial circumstances and assistance in the shop, but balanced them against her conduct.
4. The claimant had retained £10,000 invested on behalf of her mother, sent extremely hostile letters, and had made no further contact for approximately nine years. Even if her work had created a moral obligation, that obligation was capable of being discharged by subsequent conduct. The claimant’s conduct outweighed the factors supporting an award.
5. It was objectively reasonable, on the facts known at the hearing, for the will to make no provision for the claimant. The claim under the 1975 Act was dismissed.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.