Ryan Antonio (A minor, by his litigation friend Umar Ali) v Jamaal George Yusuf Williams & Anor.

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, maintenance means provision for the everyday expenses of living. It is not confined to subsistence, but it does not extend to everything which it would be desirable for an applicant to have. The court must adopt a broad-brush approach to reasonable financial provision, assessing the statutory factors in the circumstances of each case. Where the deceased was beneficially entitled to a joint tenancy, the court may treat the deceased’s severable share as part of the net estate if that is just. The court may make an order under the Act before a grant of representation has been obtained. In determining the appropriate provision, the court may select the jointly owned property that best reflects the deceased’s testamentary wishes and the parties’ housing and financial circumstances.

The claimant, a minor, sought reasonable financial provision from the estate of Sharon Marcia Antonio McBean under sections 1(1)(d) and 1(1)(e) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. He relied on having been treated as a child of the family and on having been maintained by the deceased.

The estate included interests in three jointly owned properties. The defendants disputed the extent of the estate and contended that the claimant’s needs could be met by his father. The court also had to determine whether an order could be made when no grant of representation was presently in force.

1. Eligibility and failure of provision. The claimant was eligible under both sections 1(1)(d) and 1(1)(e) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The deceased had maintained him throughout his life, assumed primary responsibility for his maintenance and treated him as her child. The will made no effective provision for him, which constituted a failure to make reasonable financial provision.
2. Applicable approach. For a claimant in the relevant statutory categories, reasonable financial provision means what it is reasonable to receive for maintenance. As explained in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, maintenance concerns everyday living expenses. The Act requires a broad-brush assessment rather than a purely mathematical exercise. The court considered the claimant’s age, lack of resources, his father’s limited means, the deceased’s established contribution and her testamentary wishes.
3. Joint property. The court rejected the allegation that the deceased had fraudulently been added to the title of 42 Chestnut Rise. The contemporaneous documents showed that the property had been transferred into joint names in 2002. Applying section 9(1), the court treated the deceased’s severable share in 8a Voce Road, rather than 42 Chestnut Rise, as part of the net estate. That property was let, was no one’s home and was identified in the will as a source of provision.
4. Amount and timing. A payment of £50,000 was reasonable provision for the claimant’s maintenance until the completion of higher or further education. The court rejected the submission that the evidence was insufficient, although the limited detail justified making no larger award.
5. Grant of representation. The Act contains no clear prohibition on making an order before a grant. Sections 4 and 5 show that applications and interim orders may arise before representation is taken out. The requirement to endorse an order on a grant under section 19(3) does not prevent an order being made before a grant exists. An order was therefore made for £50,000, funded by treating the severable share in 8a Voce Road as part of the net estate.