The Practical Lawyer


Wills – dependency claim

A widow successfully appealed an award under the I(PFD)A which was made in favour of the testator’ long-term partner (P). The High Court ordered that a life interest in the testator’s half share of property was to vest in the widow (W).

In this case, W appealed the transfer of T’s beneficial interest in their jointly owned property to P who had made a dependency claim on the basis that T’s will did not make reasonable financial provision for his partner under s2(1) I(PFD)A.

W and T were married at the time of his death, but had lived separately for a long time. Under the terms of his will, he left his residuary estate to W. T and P had lived together for many years and owned a property as tenants in common in equal shares. T’s share would normally have passed automatically to W, but following P’s dependency claim, the trial judge transferred T’s 50% share in the property to P.

W appealed on six grounds:

the trial judge was wrong to conclude that P fell within s1(1)(ba);

the trial judge’s finding that T ‘maintained’ P within the meaning of s1(1)(e) was unsustainable on the evidence;

the trial judge’s conclusions as to the extent of P’s financial needs were unsupported by any proper/admissible evidence and/or were contradicted by her own evidence;

the relief granted to P was substantially above what was necessary;

the trial judge wrongly disregarded P’s interest in another property as an asset available to P to meet her needs; and

The trial judge wrongly dismissed W’s evidence as to her financial needs in circumstances in which her evidence was not challenged during cross-examination.

In his judgment, Smith J summarised the requirements of the 1975 Act: three questions must be asked by the court:

Does the claimant have standing to apply under s2? This requires a claimant to fall into a category or class of person set out in s1(1) of the Act.

Has the deceased’s estate made reasonable financial provision for the claimant’s maintenance?

If not, what provision should be made?

The court found that the trial judge did not have sufficient grounds to exclude the other property from consideration, because a sibling’s life interest in the property was not good enough reason.

In addition, the trial judge had not been entitled to express scepticism as to the truth of P’s evidence of her means in the absence of cross-examination on the issue. He had, therefore, wrongly and without justification understated P’s financial position and overstated that of W – concluding that she was in less financial need than the facts warranted. Therefore, the relief granted was in excess of what was necessary.

The court therefore vested in P a life interest in T’s 50% share of the property, with all other rights (specifically the reversion of that interest) to vest in W. This prevents W from seeking to sell the property over P’s head, but does not involve the excessive provision of transferring the half share outright to her. Martin v Williams [2017] EWHC 491 (Ch). Source:


Most-read articles

Wills – dependency claim
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
A widow successfully appealed an award under the I(PFD)A which was made in favour of the testator’ long-term partner (P). The High Court ordered that a life interest in the testator’s half share... Read more...
Legal advice privilege – ‘the client’
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
Legal advice privilege applies to communications with the ‘client’ (only). But, in a large organisation, how do you define the ‘client’? Read more...
Proportionality – planning
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
These are the words of a county court judge in 2001 – they remain equally valid today: Read more...
Architect’s drawing – IP
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
A client may acquire a property with an existing planning permission. If that planning permission is granted on condition that the development is carried out in accordance with specific drawings,... Read more...
MIB – new agreements
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
In January, the MIB published a new Untraced Drivers Agreement, and a revised version of its Uninsured Drivers Agreement, with the changes coming into effect on 1 March 2017. Read more...
Possession – deposit release?
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
On a residential property possession claim, can the court order the deposit holder to release the deposit to L on account of a judgment for rent arrears (ie without the consent of T)? Read more...
Property guardians – assured shorthold!
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
Property guardians are residential occupiers sent into an empty commercial building to protect it from squatters and vandalism. Typically, a guardian will occupy under a licence agreement, and pay a... Read more...
Rates – refurbishment
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
The Supreme Court has handed down a judgment that will be welcomed by all commercial property developers. The court has reversed the previous CA decision and held that only nominal rates have to be... Read more...
Legal aid – domestic violence
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
The five-year time limit on evidence of abuse which prevented vulnerable victims of domestic violence from securing legal aid for court hearings has been removed. This means more victims will be able... Read more...
Holiday pay – finality
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal in the long-running Lock holiday pay litigation. Read more...


IAG International
In House Lawyer
Join the IBA now!
MSI Global Alliance