Wayne Anthony Larsen & Anor v Heather Diane Annan

For an adult child claiming under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, maintenance is a broad but limited concept. It concerns provision enabling the applicant to meet recurring living expenses at a standard appropriate to the circumstances. Need is necessary but not sufficient. The applicant must establish that the will fails to make reasonable financial provision, assessed objectively at the hearing date.

A moral claim is often relevant but is not an essential condition in every case. Disability may justify provision for future care needs even where current living expenses are met. The award must balance the applicant’s needs against the estate’s size and the financial position of other beneficiaries. Provision may properly be held on discretionary trust where an outright payment would risk loss of benefits or misuse.

George Alfred Annan died leaving his estate principally to his daughter, Heather, subject to gifts of £10,000 to each of his sons, Wayne and Russell. Wayne and Russell, both adult and independently established, applied under sections 1(1)(c) and 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Wayne claimed provision for debts and an alleged household deficit. Russell, who was chronically disabled and dependent on assistance with daily tasks, sought further provision for his present and future needs. The central issues were whether the will made reasonable financial provision for either claimant and, if not, the appropriate amount and form of any award.

1. Wayne’s claim dismissed. The court held that Wayne had not shown an unmet need for maintenance. Payment of his statutory charge was not maintenance because it created no current financial burden. Payment of the business loan was likewise excluded because it was a business expense capable of being repaid over time. The alleged household shortfall was not established, having regard to voluntary capital mortgage repayments, expenditure attributable to financially capable adult children, and the income available within the household.
2. Even if Wayne’s needs had not already been met, the £10,000 legacy was reasonable. The estate was modest, Heather had substantial financial needs, and Wayne had significant property equity, a profitable business and income exceeding £30,000 annually. His father’s past cash gifts did not create a relevant obligation or responsibility.
3. Russell’s claim succeeded in part. His ordinary current living needs were met by his income and he had not proved an unmet housing need. However, his disability was likely to deteriorate and create future care costs. The court accepted that state provision was unlikely to exceed subsistence level and that some private expenditure would be required to maintain his quality of life.
4. The absence of any recognition of Russell’s disability-related needs made the will unreasonable in all the circumstances. Reasonable provision did not require the estate to meet the full cost of private care. A fund of £25,000, in addition to the £10,000 legacy, struck the appropriate balance between Russell’s future needs, the modest estate and Heather’s position.
5. The £25,000 was ordered to be held on discretionary trust, available at the trustee’s discretion for Russell’s care costs. That form was justified both by its likely effect on benefits and by Russell’s past gambling problems. Any balance remaining at his death was to revert to Heather. The precise trust terms and trustee were left for further submissions.