Analysis
The claimant was a cohabitant with the late Sarah Elizabeth Campbell (‘deceased’) at 3 Westville Road, Thames Ditton (‘property’). The deceased had previously been married to Neil Robert Campbell, with whom she had a son, the defendant. Mr Campbell died on 27 October 1992 and, a year or two later, a romantic relationship developed between the claimant and the deceased. In around 2001, the claimant moved into the property to live with the deceased though he continued to stay with his elderly mother for several days and nights each week until she died in 2010. The claimant’s relationship with the deceased changed over the years and, as a result of health issues, became one of companionship. The deceased died unexpectedly on 7 October 2015. By a will made fourteen years previously, the deceased left the claimant, to whom she referred to as her ‘friend’, the sum of £5,000 and the residue of her estate on trust for the defendant. The claimant brought a claim for reasonable financial provision from the estate pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 (‘Act’).
Held (allowing the claim):
Although the relationship had become more burdensome for the deceased, it was not right or fair to characterise the claimant as being no more than a lodger. Having regard to the multifarious nature of marital relationships, the claimant was entitled to apply under section 1(1A) of the Act as a person who, during the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date of the deceased’s death, was living in the same household as the deceased and as the husband of the deceased. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the claimant’s alternative claim that he was a person who immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased pursuant to section 1(1)(e) of the Act. The defendant had accepted that the claimant was in part being maintained by the deceased through the provision of rent free accommodation. However, this should be viewed principally in the context of the relationship between the deceased and the claimant – it was that relationship, lasting for more than 20 years, and the open cohabitation between the parties for most of those years, which underpinned the claim rather than any partial dependency. Consideration of the claim involved two questions: (i) had there been a failure to make reasonable financial provision and, if so, (ii) what order ought to be made? In this case, this meant such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to receive for his ‘maintenance’; a word which connoted only payments which, directly or indirectly, enabled the applicant in the future to discharge the cost of his daily living at whatever standard was appropriate to him.
The court was required to answer both questions by making a value judgment based on the highly individual circumstances of the case. As to the first question, to have left the claimant a legacy of only £5,000 for his maintenance, was not such as to make reasonable financial provision. As to the second question, the length of the relationship between the deceased and the claimant ought to be recognised as tending to lead towards more generous provision for maintenance. It was not reasonable to proceed on the basis that the claimant’s accommodation needs should be met either by renting or purchasing an over 60’s one-bedroomed property local to Thames Ditton. On the other hand, the estate should not be required to pay out a lump sum to purchase such accommodation to be owned outright by the claimant as such capital provision would go beyond maintenance and be lost to the estate on his death. Instead, an order should be made to sell the property (which had been valued at £725,000) and grant a life interest in one half of the net sale proceeds to be used by the claimant in or towards the provision of alternative accommodation. It would be open to the claimant, if he wished, to contribute capital of his own, in which case it would have to be agreed in what proportions as between him and the estate the property was owned. In addition, a fund of £20,000 should be made available from the estate in case the property purchased required specific adaptation to meet the claimant’s needs.
JUDGMENT MASTER TEVERSON: [1] This is a claim by the claimant, Mr Andrew Banfield, for reasonable financial provision from the estate of the late Mrs Sarah Elizabeth Campbell (‘the deceased’) pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, as amended (‘the Act’). The deceased died on 7 October 2015 aged 63 on a holiday flight to the Canary Islands. [2] Mr Banfield claims as a cohabitant of the deceased …Continue reading "Banfield v Campbell [2018] WTLR 781"