Widow wins High Court battle for ‘Reasonable Provision’ despite being written out of Husband’s Will

The Inheritance Act 1975 makes two standards of provision depending on the status of the claimant in a claim for maintenance money from a deceased’s Estate. Whilst the Act provides that such financial provision as “would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for their maintenance” be potentially claimed from the Estate, current (and former) Spouse, Spouses or Civil Partners would likely attract a higher provision of maintenance than others outside those categories.

Very recently, in the case of Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam), it was ruled that ‘reasonable provision’ was not made for an 83-year-old widow, ‘left with next to nothing’.

Despite the estimated value of the Estate, before tax and costs, was almost £2M, the deceased left nothing in his Will to his wife. Instead the deceased had made legacies for his sons only.

This case was brought before the court to question, whilst considering the 1975 Act, whether the Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant, the widow. And further, if so, what financial provision would be appropriate?

The couple had been married for over 65 years at the date of death, but, in 2005 the deceased wrote his Will, expressly stating his wishes to leave his Estate “solely down the male line”, therefore, excluding his wife and four daughters. If the administration of his Estate were to follow his Will, the Estate would have been divided equally between two of the sons.

The claimant relied on the fact that she was dependent financially upon the deceased, who met all family outgoings.

Without such financial assistance, the claimant has very modest assets and an income consisting of state benefits. This was sufficient for Mr Justice Peel to be satisfied that the deceased had played a “full role” in the marriage and in the family’s business.

It was stated by Mr Justice Peel that weighing up all the factors in s3 of the Inheritance Act 1975, “this is the clearest possible case entitling me to conclude that reasonable provision has not been made for the claimant”, adding: “It is hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached.”

Accordingly, Mr Justice Peel awarded 50% of the net value of the Estate to the claimant.

Whilst there has been a great deal of cases in relation to this area of law, this decision clearly evidences that some individuals cannot simply be left-out or cut-out of a Will if they have previously depended upon, made significant contributions to the life of and supported the deceased.

If you feel the contents of this Article apply to you in any regard, please feel free to get in contact and see what Nantes can do for you.