What amounts to ‘reasonable financial provision’ in claims against a deceased’s estate? In an interesting high value claim, the High Court has reiterated that the test for what is ‘reasonable’ is objective – leading to a huge uplift to the claimant’s entitlement.
What is an inheritance claim?
Amongst the various claims that Dependants can bring against an estate, one of the most common are those for “reasonable financial provision” under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 “the Act”. Dependants include the surviving spouse or civil partner, children of the deceased or those who may have been treated as such and those who were being maintained wholly or partly by the deceased at the date of death.
A claim can be brought whether or not the deceased made a will. The important consideration therefore is whether the dispositive effect of the will or the rules of intestacy already make reasonable financial provision for the intending claimant. In deciding such a claim the court will consider all the matters as set out at section 3 of the Act before deciding if and how to exercise its powers.
What is ‘reasonable’?
A key factor for the court in determining claims brought under the Act is what amounts to ‘reasonable’ financial provision. What is the relevant test?
Recently in the reported case of Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688, Alexander Klein died in March 2020 aged 87, leaving an £8.18m estate. He left a will giving his 46-year-old wife Elena £300,000 “on the understanding that [she] will make no claim” against the estate.
The couple had been married for 17 years and had a 12-year-old son, Elliot, to whom Alexander left £100,000 on trust. He also left numerous legacies to various beneficiaries (a close business associate was left £200,000); and 90% of his residuary estate was left to a discretionary charitable trust.
Unsurprisingly, Elena was shocked to discover her late husband had made no provision for where she and their son would live or how they would maintain themselves, other than the lump sum. She brought a claim under the Act.
The executors (a law firm) agreed that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for Elena and that she should, at least, be awarded the matrimonial home.
Elena was seeking a 50:50 split of the estate between herself and (collectively) the other beneficiaries. This was appropriate, she argued, given she was a relatively young widow following a long marriage in which she had been entirely dependent on Alexander. She had also moved to England, given up her career and is the mother of their young son.
The judge made clear that “reasonable financial provision” under the Act is an objective test, rather than a subjective test dictated by what the deceased considered reasonable.
If the terms of Alexander’s will were implemented, Elena and Elliot would have to move from London to Southend to a small flat and change schools. It would amount to “a wholesale departure” from their community and life in London. Furthermore, the lump sum would have barred them from means tested state benefits; and it would have been exhausted within around 12 years with modest spending.
Therefore the lump sum was not objectively found to amount to reasonable financial provision for the claimants in the circumstances.
Applying the important divorce ‘crosscheck’, the judge affirmed the principle that a surviving spouse should not find themselves “in a worse position than if the marriage had ended by divorce and not by death”.
Notably, the judge also made clear that Elena and the child had priority over all the other beneficiaries.
The award
The court calculated that reasonable financial provision for Elena and Elliot as a minimum would amount to the transfer of the former matrimonial home unencumbered and £1,864,089 (payable in instalments). If in future, additional amounts beyond the court’s £7,160,222 valuation of the estate become available for distribution – Elena would be entitled to 40% of those amounts.
How can we help?
The team of contested probate solicitors at mfg Solicitors is consistently ranked as a top tier Legal 500 firm and whose members are available to provide prompt, strategic and cost-effective advice to individuals involved in both bringing and defending estate disputes.
For early advice, please email Andrew Chandler at andrew.chandler@mfgsolicitors.com, fill in our Contact Form, or give us a call on 01562 820181.
Comments