Can The Surviving Spouse of a Claimant Under The Inheritance (Provision For Family And Dependants) Act 1975 Pursue The Claim on The Estate’s Behalf?
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 enables an individual to bring a claim against the estate of a deceased person if they have not been provided for adequately in the Deceased’s will.
The claim must be issued at Court within 6 months of the grant of probate and cannot be started outside this time period unless the circumstances are exceptional and the Court gives permission.
Only certain classes of individual can bring such a claim and they include:
- The Deceased’s surviving spouse;
- A former spouse who has not remarried or formed a civil partnership with another;
- One of the Deceased’s children;
- Any individual in relation to the Deceased’s family circumstances was “treated as a child” of the Deceased (e.g. step-children, adopted children, children of Deceased’s partner);
- Anyone being maintained by the Deceased prior to the Deceased’s death; or
- A cohabitant of 2 years or more living with the Deceased prior to his/her death
Essentially, the spirit of the 1975 Act is to provide help for people whom the Deceased had a “moral obligation” to maintain. The types of awards that one can seek under the 1975 Act include settlements of money or property, but these awards should be proportionate to the estate and only in an amount that will sufficiently maintain the Claimant.
There are a number of factors in section 3 that the Court will consider when deciding whether to make an award, and how much that should be. The 1975 Act can be more generous to surviving spouses and sometimes, the Court will assess what the situation might have been had the couple divorced and the Claimant had applied for “ancillary relief” in the Family Court.
The Court has recently drawn a line in the sand however concerning the issue of 1975 Act claims surviving the Claimant’s death. In Archibald v Stewart & another [2023] EWHC 2515 (Ch), 1975 Act claims were brought by the son and daughter-in-law of the late Rosemary and Malcolm Archibald. The late Mr & Mrs Archibald had two adopted sons. One of them, Neil, brought a claim under the 1975 Act as did his wife.
The claim was issued out of time, and the Claimants were in the main unhappy with the way in which Mr & Mrs Archibald’s estates were being administered. They had left the majority of their estates in a discretionary trust, with professional trustees appointed to divide up the estate as they saw fit. The Claimants were unhappy that they were due to receive little in the way of capital, with the trustees opting to hold back much of the estate for the benefit of their children.
Neil was terminally ill unfortunately, and he died before the claim reached hearing. The Court was asked to decide, amongst other issues, whether Neil’s claim would survive his death given that his widow, Julie was a fellow Claimant. However, as Julie was not a child of Mr & Mrs Archibald, it was not clear whether she had standing to bring a claim in her own right and if the Court decided she was not, then she would have been dependent on Neil’s claim succeeding.
Generally, claims that a Deceased person may have been able to bring – or any claims that could have been brought against them – can be brought after their lifetime under section 1 of the Law reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. However, case law has established that this does not apply to 1975 Act claims, because the very purpose of a 1975 Act claim is to meet someone’s maintenance needs. It goes without saying that somebody who has died has no such needs. Further, a more recent decision (Unger v Ul-Hasan [2023] UKSC 22) provided that claims for maintenance during a divorce cease upon the death of one of the parties.
The Court having decided that Neil’s claim ended when he died then considered whether Julie had standing to bring a claim. Julie had alleged that she had been treated as a child of the family by her late husband’s parents. She argued that her father-in-law had been helpful to her and that this in effect amounted to him undertaking a “parental” role. She also argued that this was evidenced by she and Neil being given a house deposit by Neil’s parents, being taken on holiday with them, helping Neil’s parents when they became frail and unwell and being included as beneficiaries of the discretionary trust.
The Judge commented that the crucial question was whether their conduct towards Julie was “anything more than one would expect between parents and the wife of their son”. The Judge was not persuaded that a parental relationship had arisen. The Judge also refused to allow either of them to pursue their claims out of time, citing that they may not have been well advised by their solicitors and that there was no good reason for failing to start their claim within the 6 month limitation period.
This decision has set some parameters for future claims under the 1975 Act. In conclusion:
- A 1975 Act claim cannot be brought on behalf of a deceased person as maintenance needs are only apparent in that person’s lifetime;
- For someone to be treated as a “child” of the Deceased, there must be evidence of some kind of parental role being undertaken, and not merely being helpful, supportive or friendly; and
- Claims should be brought within the 6 month time limit and relying on legal advice not to do so is not generally seen as a reasonable excuse.
For further advice and assistance in relation to 1975 Act claims, please contact Lewis Hastie or Joshua Proud at BRM Solicitors Limited on 0114 3497000.
