Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam)

Judgment date: 7 March 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/688

Williams J. Judgment to determine reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for the spouse and son of the deceased following limited provision for them in the Will and mismanagement of the Will by the executrix.

Background

Mr Klein died in March 2020 leaving behind his wife of 17 years, Elena Klein (claimant) and a child Son (aged 12). In his will, created in January 2011, he left his wife £300,000 as a lump sum; and his son £100,000 in a trust fund (first defendant). He made various other bequests including to charity. The will made no provisions for the maintenance of his wife and son or where they would live; [4].

His longtime secretary Cynthia Adler was appointed the deceased’s executrix and trustee. She was also a pecuniary beneficiary and a 10% residuary beneficiary under the Will. In the months following the death of Mr Klein, the claimant and Ms Adler entered into correspondence regarding the estate, but no progress was made. On 3 March 2021, the claimant brought an action to remove Ms Adler as the executrix of the will and on 5 November 2021 Ms Adler was replaced as Executrix, with the Trust Corporation; [5].

The claimant has lived a hand to mouth existence for nearly five years and had had possession proceedings (or the threat arising from an unpaid mortgage) hanging over her and the son for most of that period. In the five years following the death of the husband, the estate, valued at £8.18m, made only one £7,500 payment to the claimant, and this was a single compliance with an ongoing order for interim provision in these proceedings. None of the pecuniary beneficiaries had received a penny nor had any of the worthy charities.

As a result of the ‘woeful’ administration of the estate, the claimant did not issue a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 until 14 March 2023; [8].

The hearing

The claimant sought an equal division of the Estate between herself on the one hand, and the other Will beneficiaries on the other. She provided a number of reasons for this as set out at [12]⁠(a)–(f).

The first defendant agreed that the Will does not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. The first defendant agreed that the matrimonial home should be included in any award made to the claimant and the proposal that she receive half of the net estate was not opposed if the court considered this to be reasonable financial provision.

The law

The court had to determine what is reasonable financial provision, a matter which is fact specific, [42], and the key factors under the 1975 Act. There is no hierarchy between factors mentioned in s 3 of the Act. Which is more or less relevant will depend on the facts of the case; [18].

The deceased’s testamentary wishes are relevant but not determinative. Whether they are reasonable must be interrogated by the court; [19]. Under the 1975 Act, what is reasonable is an objective test; [20].

The judge considered the divorce cross check and highlighted its likely elevated relevance in long marriage cases; [21], [22].

The judge considered that a ‘pre-nuptial agreement’ will not be significant if it was entered into under undue pressure or if the parties were in unequal bargaining position when entering it; [23]. Here, the PNA purported to exclude any claim at all, appear to have been ‘home-made’ and prepared without any legal advice by the deceased or any being obtained by the claimant, and would have carried little, if any, weight if the parties had divorced.

Outcome

The effect of the Will, if implemented, would have required the claimant and Elliot to move to Southend to take up occupation of a small flat with a consequent change of school for Elliot and a wholesale departure from the community and life that they had lived in London. The lump sum provided to the claimant would have been a bar to them receiving means-tested state benefits and would have been exhausted within 12-odd years even if expended at a very modest rate of £30,000 per annum. Objectively this is not reasonable financial provision (assuming much larger sums are available) for a 12-year-old child and a wife of 17-odd years against a backdrop of relative affluence.

The Will of the deceased did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. The judge outlined what would be reasonable financial provision for the claimant by evaluating her and the child’s basic needs, potential fluctuations in relation to the value of the Estate, and changes to the Trust value. The total lump sum, to be paid in instalments, was £1,864,089.

Were the minimum value of the estate to fall below £6m these sums are the floor for reasonable financial provision. The claimant and Elliot take priority over any of the other beneficiaries. To the extent that this impacts on Ms Adler most (as a specific legatee) that is fair given her conduct and her entitlements under the Will should take the first hit in so far as other beneficiaries are impacted by ensuring the claimant and Elliot receive the minimum sums identified.

In the event that Cripps bring in more than the net estate required to meet this minimum then the claimant should receive 40% of the overall net value of the Estate.

Costs against Ms Adler.