Kaur v Singh and Others [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam)14 February 2023
Published: 17/03/2023 09:00
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/304.html
Peel J. Claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision from her deceased husband under Part 8 of the CPR. The claim was undefended. The claimant sought half of the estate which she estimated at £995,000. The will left the estate in equal shares to two of the children, who were the named executors, excluding the claimant and the other four siblings as the deceased wished to leave his estate solely down the male lineage. The issues to be considered by the court were whether the will had failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant, and if so, what should the financial provision be (Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17).
Weighing up all the factors in section 3 of the Inheritance Act 1975, the court summarily disposed of the claim and determined that the deceased’s estate did not make reasonable provision for the claimant. Given the duration of the marriage (66 years), to which the claimant had made a full contribution, and during which all the assets accrued, the divorce cross check pointed towards an equal division of the assets. An equal division of the net assets was accepted by the claimant to sufficiently meet all her capital and budgetary needs. It was ordered that she should receive 50% of the net value of the estate and the disposition of the estate effected by the will should be varied to that effect.
The case also notes that the CPR applies in an Inheritance Act claim, even if the claim is issued in the Family Division or transferred there. However, if the claim is issued in or transferred to the Family Division, then parties must comply with the requirements as to bundles and preliminary documents as set out in PD 27A of the FPR 2010.
©2023 Class Legal classlegal.com
