Valerie May Olga Sim v Kate Ellen Elizabeth Pimlott & Ors

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, reasonable financial provision for a surviving spouse is assessed objectively and by reference to all relevant circumstances. Testamentary freedom remains important, and the absence of competing financial need does not entitle a claimant to rewrite the will. A terminable life interest may constitute reasonable provision, depending on the facts. A conditional legacy may be upheld where the underlying provision is objectively reasonable and the condition reasonably protects the estate from delay and litigation. The divorce cross-check is neither a floor nor a ceiling. However, provision that leaves a long-standing surviving spouse homeless may be insufficient, even where income is otherwise adequate. The court may vary the trusts to require capital to be applied towards purchasing suitable accommodation.

The claimant, the widow of the deceased, sought reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. She also claimed ownership and delivery up of various personal items said to have been gifted to her.

The deceased’s will provided conditional cash legacies to the claimant, a life interest in residue, and legacies to children and grandchildren. The claimant did not comply with the conditions and pursued an Inheritance Act claim. The central questions were whether the will made reasonable financial provision and, if not, what variation should be ordered.

1. Inheritance Act claim. The court approached the matter objectively. The question was whether the will made reasonable financial provision for the claimant, not whether the deceased’s intentions were reasonable. The statutory factors applied to both the question of sufficiency and the remedy.
2. The claimant’s income, index-linked NHS widow’s pension, prospective state pension and existing interest in the Dubai apartment adequately met her financial needs apart from housing. The deceased’s testamentary wishes, the grandchildren’s legacies, the needs of certain adult children, the size and nature of the estate, the length of the relationship and marriage, the claimant’s contributions, and her conduct were all relevant.
3. The divorce cross-check did not impose a floor or ceiling. The claimant’s hypothetical entitlement on divorce, including a possible equal division, was only one factor of variable weight.
4. The conditional legacies of £250,000 and £125,000 were reasonable. They were intended to secure release of claims and interests, avoid delay and costs, and facilitate distribution of the grandchildren’s legacies. It would be wrong to treat the claimant’s decision to pursue litigation, and consequent loss of the conditional benefits, as itself demonstrating that the will was inadequate.
5. A life interest in residue could constitute reasonable provision. Nevertheless, the will failed in one respect because its operation would leave the claimant, after sale of the matrimonial home, without secure accommodation. The trusts were therefore varied under section 2 so that the claimant could require up to £400,000 of capital to be applied, including purchase costs and stamp duty, towards a property to occupy rent-free for life or while capable of living independently. She would bear council tax, utilities and other outgoings.
6. Gifts. Claims concerning the piano, Mercedes, Jaguar and Bentley were dismissed. The claim concerning the replacement vehicle for the Porsche and the paintings was upheld.

First-instance decision. The judgment records an earlier preliminary issue decision concerning Brickies Limited, but that decision was not the judgment under consideration and was not appealed successfully.