Banfield v Campbell

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, maintenance is directed to meeting the applicant’s ordinary living expenses. It is not a means of conferring capital, although housing may constitute maintenance and may be funded by a lump sum where appropriate. The court must adopt a broad assessment of all relevant circumstances and the statutory factors. For a cohabitant, a long relationship, particular accommodation needs, age, disability and the nature of the estate may justify substantial provision. Where an outright award would transfer a substantial part of the estate’s capital, provision by way of a life interest in accommodation or sale proceeds may be more appropriate.

Mr Andrew Banfield sought reasonable financial provision from the estate of Sarah Elizabeth Campbell under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. He claimed as a person who had lived with the deceased as her husband and, alternatively, as a person maintained by her.

The deceased had left the residue of her estate, principally a house, to her only child, Mr James Campbell, and £5,000 to Mr Banfield. The issues were whether Mr Banfield qualified as an applicant, whether the will made reasonable financial provision for his maintenance, and what order should be made having regard to the statutory factors.

1. Mr Banfield qualified under section 1(1)(ba). Applying Re Watson [1999] 1 FLR 878, the question was whether, viewed by a reasonable person with normal perceptions and recognising the variety of marital relationships, the parties were living together as husband and wife. Separate bedrooms and Mr Banfield’s health-related sleeping arrangements did not end the cohabiting relationship.

2. The court applied the guidance in Ilott v Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17. Maintenance means provision, directly or indirectly, for the costs of daily living at an appropriate standard. It is flexible and need not be limited to subsistence. Housing may constitute maintenance, but the statutory power is not a power to confer capital. A lump sum or life interest may be appropriate depending on the circumstances.

3. The assessment involved the two connected questions whether the will made reasonable financial provision and, if not, what provision should now be made. Both questions required a broad value judgment based on the facts known at the hearing and the section 3 factors.

4. The deceased’s will made inadequate provision. The relationship had lasted more than 20 years, Mr Banfield was aged 66 and disabled, and his principal need was suitable alternative accommodation. Renting privately or purchasing a retirement lease was not a reasonable solution in the circumstances. His preferences for conventional accommodation in the Thames Ditton area were broadly reasonable, although an enclosed garden was unnecessary.

5. An outright lump sum of £350,000 to £450,000 would provide excessive capital and consume at least half the estate. The deceased’s child had legitimate expectations of receiving capital, and the main estate asset had belonged to the deceased before the relationship began. A life interest was therefore more suitable.

6. The court ordered the sale of 3 Westville Road and granted Mr Banfield a life interest in one half of the net proceeds, to be used towards alternative accommodation. A fund of £20,000 was to remain available for adaptations. The court would give directions on the sale and hear submissions on costs.