Estate of R Deceased, Re (Rev 1)

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, a child’s claim is limited to reasonable financial provision for maintenance. The court applies an objective test: whether the will produces an unreasonable result, not whether the deceased acted unreasonably. A parent’s obligation to maintain a child is not generally ended by lack of contact, failure to seek child support, or the assumption of responsibility by another person. Those matters may affect the value of the award. Maintenance may include appropriate education, accommodation, counselling and other recurring living expenses, and may be awarded by lump sum. The court must assess the claim at the hearing date and weigh the statutory factors, the estate’s resources, competing beneficiaries and the applicants’ circumstances. The Act cannot be used to rewrite a will or transfer excessive capital.

The claim was brought by J and H, the deceased’s teenage sons, against the executrix and beneficiaries of their father’s estate. The deceased’s 2018 will left them no provision, while substantial business and property interests passed to his partner and parents.

The claim arose under section 1(1)(c) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The principal issues were whether the will made reasonable financial provision for the sons’ maintenance, the significance of their long lack of contact with the deceased and the financial responsibility assumed by their mother and stepfather, and the appropriate form and amount of any award.

1. Claim allowed in part. The 2018 will failed to make reasonable financial provision for J and H because it excluded them entirely from the estate, although the award had to remain confined to maintenance and could not be used to rewrite the will.
2. The court applied the objective approach explained in Ilott v Mitson (No 2) [2017] UKSC 17. The question was whether the disposition produced an unreasonable result by failing to provide for the applicants’ maintenance, not whether the deceased acted unreasonably. Need was necessary but not sufficient. The court also had to consider the competing claims, the relationship, the estate and the statutory factors at the hearing date (paras [40]-[45]).
3. For a claim by a child under section 1(1)(c), a parent’s obligations are not generally extinguished because child support was not sought, contact ceased, or a step-parent assumed day-to-day responsibility. These matters may reduce the value of the claim. Only exceptional circumstances would justify treating the obligation to maintain as completely severed. A clean break is not generally applicable to child maintenance. The case was distinguished from In Re Jennings, decd [1994] Ch 286 because the applicants were still children and remained dependent (paras [79]-[80]).
4. The court rejected the submission that maintenance could not include expenses already incurred after death or before judgment. The jurisdiction could support an award calculated from death or a later appropriate date, although backdating was inappropriate on these facts. In Re Debenham (Deceased) [1986] 1 FLR 404 supported the availability of a capital sum to meet immediate needs and avoid backdating periodical payments (paras [83]-[88]).
5. The court assessed the children’s needs, education, living expenses, vehicles, university accommodation, post-university accommodation and counselling, while requiring contributions from the surviving family where appropriate. It awarded £68,022 to J and £117,962 to H, primarily by lump sums. The payments were, so far as possible, to be met from RPS or otherwise without disposing of RCL (paras [89]-[115]).