What is reasonable financial provision in 1975 Act claims?

13 Aug 2019 | Jan Atkinson

The long running and high profile case of Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17 has finally come to an end with the decision of the Supreme Court on 15 March to allow the charities’ appeal, thereby ending the debate about what constitutes ‘reasonable financial provision’ within the meaning of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which has been debated at length following the death of Melita Jackson in June 2004.

Heather Ilott brought a claim under the Act against the estate of her late mother, from whom she had been estranged for 26 years. Her financial circumstances were very limited, with an annual income of £4,665, and she was heavily dependent upon benefits for her daily needs. She did, however, live within her means. Her mother’s estate, which was divided by her will between several charities, was valued at £486,000.

At first instance it was decided that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for Ms Ilott and she was granted her a lump sum of £50,000 out of the estate, acknowledging that this would disqualify her from receiving state benefits.

On the quantum of the award, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision on two grounds First, that the judge had limited her award unfairly by reference to her limited means and living expenses and second, that he had failed properly to investigate the effect of the award on her benefits entitlement. The Court of Appeal increased the award to £143,000 to purchase a property and a cash sum of £20,000 to provide additional income.

The Supreme Court found that DJ Million at first instance had made neither of the errors identified by the Court of Appeal. The Judge was well aware of the effect of his order on Ms Ilott’s benefits, and had made the £50,000 award so that she could buy new white goods and other fittings to improve her standard of life, whilst leaving behind a capital sum small enough not to affect her benefit entitlements.

The Supreme Court set out the key principles arising from the case as follows:

There is no objective standard of reasonable provision for maintenance. The behaviour of both deceased and applicant, along with the other section 3 factors (i.e. matters to which the court is to have regard when exercising its powers under the 1975 Act) must be weighed in the balance when considering what would have been ‘reasonable financial provision’ for the testator to make.

  • ‘Maintenance’ does not extend to ‘any or everything which it would be desirable for the claimant to have’, nor is it limited to ‘subsistence’; it implies provision to meet the everyday expenses of living. An adult child with an income and in comfortable circumstances will not have a need for maintenance.
  • The testator’s wishes, and the reasons for making the will are both relevant factors to be accorded significant weight.
  • The receipt of means tested benefits does not put an applicant in a special category; it is a relevant indication of a claimant’s financial position.
  • Such claims cannot be decided simply by comparing the financial needs of the applicant with those of the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries do not have to justify their entitlement, nor show any expectation of benefit.
  • Long estrangement is significant when considering what is reasonable financial provision
  • Although provision can be made by a lump sum, it will not normally be right to bestow appreciating capital on a claimant, because that goes beyond maintenance. A life interest will usually be the better course.
  • An appeal will not succeed unless the first instance judge has made some appreciable error of principle; such value judgements are inherently better suited to the judge who heard the evidence and should not lightly be overturned.

There is still little guidance from the court as to how the court should actually balance the various section 3 factors when considering 1975 Act claims, but the judgement broadly supports testamentary freedom, emphasising the value of the testator’s wishes, whilst making some important comments on the principles to be applied in valuing and determining such claims. Some sort of order has been restored in the field of claims by disappointed beneficiaries!

Related Services:

Share this article

Contact

Contact us today

For a free initial conversation call 020 7485 8811

Email us Send us an email and we’ll get back to you






    Related InsightsVIEW ALL

    1. 9.10.2020

      Vigilance needed to protect those vulnerable...

      The coronavirus pandemic has left many elderly and vulnerable people increasingly isolated due to social distancing, shielding and restrictions on...

      Read more
    2. 2.9.2020

      I was left out of my...

      Whilst testators in England and Wales are able to leave their estate to whoever they wish, we are often approached...

      Read more
    3. 29.4.2020

      Coronavirus: be prepared for an increase...

      Challenging the validity of wills is already common, and with social distancing preventing solicitors carrying out the usual safeguards for...

      Read more
    4. 20.4.2020

      Jan Atkinson, Head of Wills, Probate...

      The Sunday Times newspaper article. 19th April 2020, headlined “More families going to war over wills” provided an insight on recent...

      Read more
    5. 13.8.2019

      What is reasonable financial provision in 1975...

      The long running and high profile case of Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17 has finally come to an end with the...

      Read more
    6. 5.11.2018

      Growth in the Number of Cases...

      Increasing numbers of siblings, stepchildren and partners are contesting wills and inheritances in an effort to secure a share or...

      Read more

    VIEW ALL