Thompson v Ragget & Ors (Rev 1)

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, reasonable financial provision for a cohabitee or dependant is provision for maintenance, assessed in all the circumstances. Maintenance may include accommodation and care. Although housing will often be provided through a life interest rather than a capital transfer, an outright transfer may be justified where the circumstances make it reasonable, including the length of the relationship, the claimant’s contribution, care arrangements, and the need for independence from the beneficiaries. The deceased’s wishes may be given appropriate weight, but they cannot prevent provision that is otherwise reasonable.

Joan Thompson claimed provision from the estate of her long-term partner, Wynford Hodge, who had made no provision for her in his final will. They had cohabited for about 42 years, and she had been financially dependent on him. She had significant care and accommodation needs and wished to leave her nursing home and live in Elidyr Cottage, a property acquired by Mr Hodge with a view to their living there.

The principal beneficiaries opposed an outright transfer and proposed a life interest or other trust arrangement. The central issue was what constituted reasonable financial provision for Mrs Thompson’s maintenance, including whether accommodation should be provided outright and the appropriate capital sum for adaptations and ongoing costs.

1. Outcome. The court held that the final will failed to make reasonable financial provision for Mrs Thompson. Provision was made by transferring Elidyr Cottage to her and awarding £160,000 for adaptations, moving costs and future maintenance expenses.
2. Mrs Thompson’s accommodation and care needs fell within maintenance under sections 1 and 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. The court considered the statutory factors in section 3, including the parties’ resources and needs, the deceased’s obligations and responsibilities, the size of the estate, Mrs Thompson’s disability, the length of the cohabitation and her contribution to the deceased’s family.
3. The deceased had assumed substantial responsibilities towards Mrs Thompson over their long relationship. By contrast, his responsibility towards the principal beneficiaries was slight. His wish to prevent Mrs Thompson’s children benefiting could not justify making no provision for her.
4. Following Illot v The Blue Cross and others [2017] UKSC 17, maintenance generally does not confer capital and accommodation will often be provided by a life interest. That was not an inflexible rule. In this case, the very long cohabitation, the proposed care by Mrs Thompson’s son and daughter-in-law, and the need for her to control alterations and borrowing justified an outright transfer. The beneficiaries’ lack of interest in the property also supported that conclusion.
5. The court assessed the adaptation and moving costs by reference to the evidence, allowing £28,844.68 for adaptations and £5,000 for moving costs. It allowed for ongoing costs and applied a Duxbury multiplier of 11.6, rounding the resulting capital award down to £160,000. Written submissions on outstanding matters were to be filed and exchanged within 14 days.