Lomax & ors v Greenslade [2019] WTLR 171

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2019 #174

The three adult children of a Mr Lomax brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against Ms Greenslade, the sole executor and beneficiary of Mr Lomax’s estate.

At trial HHJ Bailey concluded that the estate, which comprised a single property in London valued at £699,000, failed to make reasonable provision for the three children. He decided that Ms Greenslade should receive £69,000, being the sum of £20,000 which the deceased intended to give her under a draft will that was never executed, and the sum of £49,000 to cover the costs...

Kebbeh v Farmer [2015] EWHC 3827 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2016 #161

Malcolm Mitchell (the deceased) died on 26 September 2011 in Gambia. By his final will dated 5 May 2006 he divided his estate between his three daughters equally, subject to minor pecuniary bequests. The will left no provision for his second wife, Haddy Kebbeh (the claimant). The claimant brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Act). The defendants claimed that the deceased died domiciled in Gambia, and that the claimant therefore had no claim pursuant to s1(1) of the Act.

The deceased had moved to Gambia...

Goenka v Goenka [2014] EWHC 2966 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2016 #158

This was a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 by the widow of Nirupam Goenka (the deceased). The deceased was a member of a statutory pension scheme for NHS employees. The deceased and the claimant had been married for 15 years and together had three sons, aged between 11 and 16, who were represented in these proceedings by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. The claimant and the deceased entered into divorce proceedings and a decree nisi of divorce was made on 15 August 2012. On 7 September ...

Inheritance (Provision For Family And Dependants) Act 1975: After Ilott

Miranda Allardice and Ruth Hughes consider the problem of provision for the adult child under s2 of I(PFD)A 1975 ‘While the definition of maintenance may be wide, identifying a need for maintenance does not mean that the same will be satisfied. The important qualifying phrase is “what would be reasonable in all the circumstances of …
This post is only available to members.

Inheritance (Provision For Family And Dependants) Act 1975: ‘Necessitous circumstances’ are not enough

Ruth Hughes looks at the lessons from Re Theodore; Zarrinkhat v Kamal, which concerned a claim by an adult under the 1975 Act ‘This case demonstrates the truth of the proposition that ‘necessitous circumstances’ are not enough on their own to create a viable claim under the 1975 Act.’ The case of Re Theodore ; …
This post is only available to members.