Hulya Kars v Lewis John Brown & Ors

In a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975, the court must decide whether the intestacy rules make reasonable financial provision and, if not, what provision should be made. The two questions should not be applied rigidly: the Act requires a broad-brush assessment, with substantial overlap between them. The court may determine disputed beneficial ownership where that issue is necessary to establish the net estate. For a former spouse, the court must consider the statutory factors, including the marriage, contributions to family welfare, financial dependence, housing needs and the loss of an opportunity to obtain a financial settlement. Provision securing housing needs may properly be made by transferring estate property, even where the claimant has lived apart from the deceased for many years.

The claimant, the deceased’s former spouse, sought reasonable financial provision from his intestate estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Matrimonial finance proceedings had remained unresolved when the deceased died. A substantial part of the estate’s recorded value consisted of a property registered in the claimant’s sole name, but the parties disputed its beneficial ownership. The court therefore had to determine that ownership, assess the statutory factors, decide whether the intestacy rules made reasonable financial provision, and, if not, determine the appropriate order.

1. Beneficial ownership. It was necessary and procedurally fair to determine the beneficial ownership of 47 Princes Street because that issue was fundamental to calculating the net estate. The starting point in a sole legal ownership case is sole beneficial ownership, but the non-owner bears the burden of showing a different beneficial interest. The court must ascertain the parties’ shared intentions from their whole course of conduct, as explained in Stack v Dowden 2007 UKHL 17 and Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546.
2. Taking a holistic approach, the court found that the deceased had provided more than 85 per cent of the purchase price, while the claimant held the legal title. Their shared intention was that the beneficial ownership should be divided equally. The presumption of advancement did not assist the claimant; even if it remained good law, it was a weak presumption, as recognised in Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347. Re Bishop [1965] Ch 450 did not establish that payment from a joint account itself created an equity or trust in favour of a non-purchasing spouse.
3. 1975 Act framework. The two questions were whether the intestacy disposition failed to make reasonable financial provision and, if so, what provision should be made. The court adopted the broad-brush approach required by Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, rather than treating the two stages rigidly. The statutory factors in section 3 had to be assessed together.
4. The claimant’s 18-year marriage, her primary care of the parties’ son, her continuing but partial financial dependence, financial hardship and housing insecurity, and the loss of the opportunity to obtain a matrimonial financial order meant that the intestacy rules made no reasonable provision for her. The appropriate provision for maintenance was to secure her housing needs.
5. The remaining 50 per cent beneficial share in 47 Princes Street, which formed part of the estate, was ordered to be transferred to the claimant. No additional provision was ordered, having regard to the modest estate and the claimant’s remaining earning capacity.