Harbans Kaur v The Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors.

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the court must assess whether the deceased’s disposition makes reasonable financial provision and, if not, determine appropriate provision by weighing the statutory factors. For a surviving spouse, the hypothetical divorce provision is an important cross-check, but it sets neither a minimum nor a maximum.

A Part 8 inheritance claim may be determined summarily where the material facts are undisputed, the claim is undefended, and further inquiry would be disproportionate. In an exceptionally long marriage in which the applicant made a full and equal contribution and received no provision, equal division of the net estate may represent reasonable provision.

The claimant, aged 83, brought a Part 8 claim under section 1(1)(a) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against her deceased husband’s estate. They had been married for about 66 years. The will left the estate to two sons and made no provision for the claimant.

One defendant did not oppose the claim. The other did not acknowledge service, engage with the proceedings or attend the hearing. The claimant sought half of the estate, interim payment and related procedural orders. The central issues were whether the will failed to make reasonable financial provision and what provision should be made.

1. Disposition. The will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. The disposition was varied so that she received 50% of the net estate. £20,000 was payable forthwith on account of final distribution. Her legal costs were payable from the estate, deducted before equal division, and the consenting son was appointed personal representative.
2. Statutory assessment. Sections 1 to 3 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 required two overlapping questions: whether reasonable provision had been made and, if not, what provision was appropriate. The court considered the claimant’s needs, the estate, the beneficiaries, the deceased’s obligations, disability, conduct and the other statutory matters.
3. Spousal cross-check. Under section 3(2), the court also considered the claimant’s age, the duration of the marriage, her contribution to the family and the provision she might reasonably have expected on a hypothetical divorce. That cross-check pointed strongly towards equal division, while imposing no automatic upper or lower limit.
4. Abbreviated determination. Part 8 gives the court substantial case-management flexibility. Because the claim was undefended, the facts were not materially disputed and further evidence or disclosure would be disproportionate, the court could determine the substantive claim summarily under its case-management powers. It was unnecessary to determine the separate CPR Part 24 summary-judgment application.
5. The result reflected the exceptional length of the marriage, the claimant’s full and equal contribution, the accumulation of the family wealth during the marriage, her age and financial insecurity, and the absence of any provision under the will.