Lewis v Warner

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, maintenance is not confined to income payments or to applicants lacking money. In exceptional circumstances it may include provision of a particular home, even where the applicant can pay its full market value, if money alone cannot secure what is required for a reasonable quality of life. The court must first decide objectively whether the existing provision is unreasonable and, only then, whether to exercise its discretionary powers. A first-instance value judgment is difficult to disturb on appeal absent an error of principle. Where reasonable maintenance requires it, the court may order an estate property to be transferred in specie.

Following Audrey Blackwell’s death, her executrix, Lynn Lewis, sought possession of Green Avon from Thomas Warner, who had lived there with the deceased for nearly 20 years. Warner applied for reasonable financial provision under section 1(1)(ba) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The County Court held that the will failed to make reasonable provision for his maintenance and gave him an option to purchase the property for £385,000.

Lewis appealed, arguing that Warner was not financially needy, that the claim had been treated as one under section 1(1)(e), and that the Recorder lacked power to order a transfer at full market value or to omit an occupation rent. The central issues were whether continued occupation could constitute maintenance and whether the order was a permissible exercise of the statutory discretion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to order the transfer of Green Avon to Mr Warner for £385,000. The challenge to the costs order was left to be considered after judgment.
2. Mr Warner’s claim was under section 1(1)(ba), not section 1(1)(e). Although paragraph 22 of the Recorder’s judgment could have been expressed more clearly, it did not establish that he had wrongly treated Warner as a person maintained by the deceased under section 1(1)(e). The evidence did not justify such a finding under section 1(3).
3. “Maintenance” under section 1(2)(b) is capable, exceptionally, of encompassing an arrangement for full consideration. An applicant with ample financial resources may still require financial provision where money cannot secure the particular thing needed to sustain a reasonable quality of life. There is therefore no absolute bar on treating the provision of a home as maintenance merely because the applicant can pay for it.
4. The statutory inquiry involves two stages. The court first makes an objective assessment of whether the disposition fails to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant’s maintenance. If it does, the court then decides whether and how to exercise its powers under section 2. The decision is a qualitative value judgment, which is particularly difficult to disturb on appeal unless the judge proceeded on an error of principle.
5. In the circumstances, the Recorder was entitled to regard the sudden loss of a long-standing home, the applicant’s age and disabilities, his local support network and the location of the property as showing an exceptional failure to provide reasonable maintenance. He was also entitled to balance that need against the beneficiary’s interest by fixing a price which realised the value of the estate’s interest.
6. Section 2 permitted the court to compel an in-specie transfer of the property once the failure to make reasonable provision had been established. The Recorder was also entitled, in the circumstances and having regard to the price fixed, not to order payment of mesne profits or an occupation rent up to completion.

• High Court (Chancery Division): On appeal, Mr Justice Newey dismissed Mrs Lewis’s appeal against the County Court order transferring Green Avon to Mr Warner for £385,000.
• County Court at Gloucester and Cheltenham: In a judgment handed down on 11 November 2015, Mr Recorder Gardner QC held that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for Mr Warner’s maintenance and gave him an option to purchase the property.