In a recent ruling at the Central London County Court (Duggan v Duggan), the judge made it clear that reasonable provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”) does not include reward for ‘meritorious conduct’ even if such conduct had proved a drain on the claimant’s financial resources. The ruling is a timely reminder of the purpose of the 1975 Act which is to make financial provision out of a deceased person’s estate for an eligible applicant with a genuine need. We are seeing increasing numbers of people using the 1975 Act to argue that they have not been reasonably provided for when, in fact, they are actually challenging a valid will. The two are entirely separate and where a claim using the 1975 Act is made, that will be on the basis that the last will is valid.
Background to the case: daughter claimed larger proportion of mother’s estate
Sharon Duggan had given up her job in 2014 to care for her ailing mother with whom she lived until her death in 2018. Mrs Duggan had left her estate to be divided equally between her three daughters. Sharon objected, maintaining that, due to the sacrifices she had made to look after their mother and her mental and physical health issues, she should either be granted sole ownership of the family home, a life interest in it, or favourable terms to enable her to buy it. Her sisters did not agree with her.
No ‘moral claim’ to a greater share of the estate
When her claim came before HHJ Alan Jones KC, he set out the reasons why he rejected it. First, ‘reasonable financial provision’ does not cover rewarding meritorious conduct; second, her claim that she could not live in a flat because of her ‘hyper-vigilance’ and ‘sensitivity to sound’ was not tenable; and finally, he noted that there was nothing in her mother’s will that suggested that she planned to give Sharon a greater share of her estate than her sisters, stating “there’s no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate.” He also rejected her claim that her sisters were estranged from their mother, observing that she was instrumental in controlling their access to her.
Act not a mechanism for challenging a valid will
Although any claim brought under the 1975 Act would be scrutinised carefully, undertaking a thorough review of the claimant’s assets, liabilities, financial needs and obligations and taking account of any physical or mental disability which may impact on their ability to maintain themselves, their needs will be balanced against the resources available for distribution and the competing needs of the other beneficiaries. The onus is on the claimant to prove that they have a genuine financial need arising from inadequate financial provision made by the deceased. As this case demonstrates, the Act is not intended to be a mechanism for relatives to challenge the deceased’s wishes simply because they feel it is unfair.
Use specialist lawyers to advise
The sad fact about this claim is that the money Sharon Duggan spent on her legal fees more or less wiped out her portion of her mother’s inheritance. If she had consulted a lawyer who specialised in Inheritance Act claims, she may have saved herself a lot of time, trouble and money. As lawyers who specialise in Inheritance Act disputes, we know the emotional and financial pressures under which those who seek our advice are labouring and we will work with you to try and resolve disputes as quickly and sensibly as possible, both through negotiation at mediation and the Court process should that be necessary.
If you have any further questions or are considering bringing a claim under the 1975 Act then please contact us for an initial chat to see if we can help. We can also provide you with a short financial questionnaire for completion to allow us to determine if the Court is likely to deem that your financial needs are sufficient to warrant making a claim.
The materials on this website are provided for general information purposes only, and do not provide definitive advice. They do not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained on this website as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published on this site. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
