Anne Lettice v Linda Lettice & Ors

For an adult child’s claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, reasonable financial provision is assessed objectively and is confined to maintenance. Maintenance may include housing, but it does not extend to everything the claimant would prefer to have.

The statutory questions of failure to make reasonable provision and the appropriate order usually overlap. The court must apply the section 3 factors broadly, including the claimant’s evidenced resources and needs, the deceased’s obligations at death, the estate, testamentary wishes and relevant conduct. Rent-free accommodation provided unwillingly does not itself create a continuing obligation. A claimant who does not prove a maintenance need beyond her inheritance fails at the first stage.

The claimant, an adult daughter of the deceased, brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. She alleged that the deceased’s will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance and sought further provision from the estate.

She had lived rent-free in the deceased’s home for many years and was to receive approximately 70% of one sixth of the sale proceeds under the will. She contended that she had provided extensive care and required further provision to acquire suitable accommodation. The beneficiaries contested the claim.

The central issues were whether the claimant’s inheritance failed to provide reasonable maintenance, whether the deceased had any relevant obligation to her, and whether the claimant had established a housing need exceeding her existing entitlement.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant had not established that the deceased’s will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The second-stage question of what order should be made therefore did not arise.

2. The court applied the conventional two-stage approach explained in Ilott v Mitson (No 2) [2017] UKSC 17. The questions commonly overlap: whether reasonable financial provision has been made and, if not, what reasonable provision should now be made. The statutory inquiry is objective. It is not whether the deceased acted reasonably in making the will.

3. For a non-spouse applicant, provision is limited to maintenance. It concerns the recurring expenses of living at an appropriate standard. A capital sum may meet maintenance by relieving future income expenditure, including through the purchase of accommodation, but maintenance does not encompass everything it would be desirable for a claimant to have.

4. The claimant had not proved a reasonable need for a two-bedroom home, a car, or several items in her claimed expenditure. Her evidenced reasonable monthly outgoings were below her pension income. She also failed to show why her anticipated inheritance of about £100,000 could not purchase suitable one-bedroom retirement accommodation or fund rented accommodation.

5. The deceased had no greater obligation or responsibility towards the claimant than towards her other children. The claimant chose to leave paid employment and pursue unpaid vocational activity; she had not done so at the deceased’s request or for care which the deceased required. The deceased’s unwilling de facto provision of rent-free accommodation did not create a continuing obligation to provide for the claimant’s future needs.

6. Under section 3(1)(g), the deceased’s consistently expressed wish that the property be sold and distributed under her will was relevant. So was the claimant’s materially exaggerated account of her caring role and her admitted untruth about why she had ceased paid work. Those matters reinforced the conclusion that no further provision was justified.

The judgment records no appellate history. The claimant commenced this first-instance claim by Part 8 claim form dated 21 April 2020. An amended claim form adding the beneficiaries as defendants was issued on 25 November 2020.