AB v B & Anor

In an Inheritance Act claim by a surviving spouse, the court must properly compute the deceased’s assets before applying the statutory factors and the divorce analogy. An outdated or disputed valuation may be insufficient where an independent expert explains that further information is necessary. Non-party disclosure is exceptional and requires both the threshold conditions in CPR r31.17(3) and an evaluative exercise concerning necessity, fairness, costs and confidentiality. The jurisdiction cannot be used for an extraneous purpose, such as maximising the value of an estate, but it may be used to enable the court to discharge its statutory duty. Confidentiality concerns should ordinarily be protected by tailored conditions rather than allowed to prevent a proper valuation. A prenuptial agreement does not confer immunity from a marital or analogous claim, nor does it remove the court’s duty to compute the assets and consider the statutory factors.

The claimant, the widow of BB, brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for financial provision for herself and the parties’ three children. The estate’s principal asset was a substantial shareholding in Z Limited. The existing valuation, prepared in 2020, was challenged as outdated and potentially unreliable.

C, appointed to represent the children and remoter issue, and the estate trustees applied for third-party disclosure from Z Limited under CPR r31.17. Z Limited resisted disclosure on grounds including confidentiality, relevance, necessity and the alleged purpose of realising the shares. The central issues were whether an updated valuation was necessary for the Inheritance Act claim and whether the court should order disclosure subject to protective conditions.

1. Disclosure jurisdiction. A non-party disclosure order under CPR r31.17 requires two threshold conditions: the documents must be likely to support the applicant’s case or adversely affect another party’s case, and disclosure must be necessary to dispose fairly of the claim or save costs. If those hurdles are met, the court must exercise its discretion cautiously, having regard to all relevant circumstances, proportionality and confidentiality.
2. Necessity and valuation. The court accepted the independent expert’s evidence that the existing 2020 valuation was historic and inadequate to represent the company’s current cash-flow potential. The court could not properly compute the value of the estate’s principal asset without the requested information and documents. The applications therefore satisfied the threshold conditions.
3. Purpose of disclosure. The jurisdiction could not lawfully be used principally to maximise the value of the estate’s shares or for another extraneous purpose. Its principal purpose here was legitimate: enabling the court to compute the estate for the purposes of the Inheritance Act claim. The possible incidental benefit of assisting negotiations or a disposal did not invalidate the applications.
4. Inheritance Act and divorce analogy. The court’s statutory duty includes consideration of the size and nature of the net estate and the provision the spouse might reasonably have expected on divorce. That divorce analogy could not properly be applied without full computation of the assets. The existence or possible importance of a prenuptial agreement did not narrow that duty.
5. Confidentiality. Confidentiality was important, particularly in relation to non-parties, but it did not justify refusing disclosure. The court could impose conditions under s 34 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, including restrictions on who could receive the documents, confidentiality undertakings and controlled access.
6. Outcome. The threshold conditions for disclosure were satisfied. The court approved the preparation of an anonymised and redacted public judgment, while the original judgment remained private and confidential.