Analysis
Mr Karnail Singh (the testator) died on 21 August 2021. The claimant was his wife. They had been married since 1955 and had seven children (one of whom was deceased). All of the children were adults. The claimant had played a full role in the marriage both as wife and working in the family business without receiving a stake in it or a salary. The claimant was financially dependent on the testator who met all family outgoings. The testator’s estate was estimated to be worth about £1.9m, the entirety of the family wealth having been built up during the marriage.
The claimant was 83 years old. Her income comprised state benefits of under £12,000 pa. She had very modest assets. She had a number of medical conditions and was registered disabled.
The testator’s will left his estate in equal shares to his two sons (the second and third defendants). The testator had excluded the claimant and his daughters because he wished to leave his estate solely down the male line. The third defendant had moved into the matrimonial home following the testator’s death, leading the claimant to move out and live with her daughter.
The claimant applied for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (IPFDA). The claim was served on the second and third defendants. The second defendant had stated that he did not oppose the claim. The third defendant returned the envelope marked ‘Return to Sender’.
The claimant applied for the second defendant to be appointed as representative of the estate for the purposes of the proceedings, for an abbreviated final hearing to take place on the basis that the claim was uncontested or alternatively summary judgment, and interim relief under s5 IPFDA.
The third defendant was served personally with the claim and application. He did not file an acknowledgment of service and the process server observed him throwing the documents in a wheelie bin. The claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendants making them aware of the hearing. The third defendant did not attend. The second defendant attended in person.
Held (allowing the claim):
It was anomalous that all IPFDA claims in the Family Division had to be heard by a High Court judge no matter how modest the assets, whereas financial remedies claims would ordinarily only be heard by a High Court judge if the £15m threshold was met. Quaere whether s25 IPFDA should be amended to extend jurisdiction to the Family Court.
Weighing up the factors in s3 IPFDA, this was the clearest possible case to conclude that reasonable provision had not been made for the claimant. After a marriage of 66 years, to which she had made a full and equal contribution, and during which all the assets accrued, she was left with next to nothing. The divorce cross-check pointed unerringly toward an equal division of assets (White v White [2000] and Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] referred to). An equal share would meet her needs.
It was just and reasonable to dispose of the issues to the extent possible at this hearing. The second defendant did not resist the claim and the third defandant had not participated. The claim was treated as undefended. The facts did not appear to be in dispute. It would not be proportionate to await further clarification of the value of the estate pending a final decision. The claimant was elderly and impoverished and it was unreasonable to prolong proceedings without a clear justification. The court therefore decided to make the decision summarily.
The court did not need to consider the summary judgment application, though it was of the view that a finding of summary judgment could have been safely and properly made (Dellal v Dellal [2015] referred to).
The court was satisfied that the testator’s will did not make reasonable provision for the claimant, that she should receive 50% of the net value of the estate, that the sum of £20,000 should be paid forthwith to her on account, that her legal costs should be paid out of the estate and deducted from the gross value before the equal division, and that the second defendant should be appointed as personal representative of the estate.
JUDGMENT PEEL J: [1] This is a Part 8 claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 dated 7 July 2022. The Claimant (‘C’) seeks reasonable financial provision from her deceased husband, who died on 21 August 2021. Her claim is brought under s1(1)(a) of the Act as ‘the spouse or former spouse of the deceased’. Procedural …Continue reading "Kaur v Singh & ors [2023] WTLR 569"