Ilott v The Blue Cross was the first decision of the Supreme Court under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 providing for an adult daughter to challenge the terms of her mother’s will on grounds that the will did not provide reasonable provision for her. The Supreme Court weighed up the mother’s freedom to choose who to provide for against an adult daughter’s entitlement and any obligation to make reasonable financial provision for her.
It can be notoriously difficult to assess the merits of a claim, likely size of an award and what form any award should take, dependent upon whether a claim is being brought by a cohabitee, adult child or involves a relatively short marriage or civil partnership. The courts take into account a number of competing interests to include the relative means of each party, their relationship, the size of the estate and any potential prejudice to other beneficiaries.
Following Ilot, the courts are still grappling with these competing interests. In Nahajec v Fowler another adult daughter made a claim against the estate of her father. It was claimed that there was a fraught relationship due to the father’s unreasonable behaviour.
The daughter had debts totalling £6,600. The deceased left his entire estate, totalling £264,279, to a close friend who owned his own home (subject to a mortgage) and a business.
The judge credited the daughter for trying to establish a relationship with her father and was impressed that she wanted to better herself by obtaining further qualifications, to improve her financial situation. The judge decided the size of the estate justified provision and awarded £30,000 to the daughter for maintenance.
Ball v Ball 2 adult children had been cut out of their mother’s will after making allegations of sexual abuse against their father. Their father had pleaded guilty to the majority of charges made against him. The deceased’s other 8 children were all beneficiaries under her will. The estate was small (under £200,000) and the claimants were in a very similar financial position to that of the beneficiaries, getting by.
The judge decided due to the modest size of the estate and the large number of beneficiaries, making an award to the claimants would not make a significant difference. The judge added that the father’s abuse did not provide a moral obligation on their mother to compensate the claimants under her will.
The courts continue to get to grips with claims by adult children claiming a moral obligation, weighing up competing interests and citing that each case turns on its own facts.
Jacksons Law Firm has a wealth of experience dealing with all forms of dispute resolution, if you require any assistance regarding probate litigation matters please contact Inderjit Gill.
Please share the article
