Widow excluded from £1.9m estate – successfully challenges husband's Will
In the case of Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam), the Will of Mr K Singh (‘the Deceased’) was successfully challenged by his 83-year-old widow Mrs Kaur, (“Mrs Kaur”) after she and her four daughters were entirely excluded from his Will, which sought to pass his estate valued at around £1.9m to only the male lineage of his family, being his two sons.
Despite being married for 66 years, the Deceased’s Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for Mrs Kaur, who was left to move into the home of one of her daughters and to claim welfare benefits from the state. Mrs Kaur had health issues and was considered to be living in poverty compared to her standard of living during the marriage.
Mrs Kaur successfully brought a claim for reasonable financial provision against her late husband the Deceased’s Estate, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Act”)[1].
As a spousal claim under the Act, the Court would have had to consider the age of Mrs Kaur, the duration of the marriage and her contribution in the marriage to the Deceased, her health and the nature and size of the estate in question. The Court would also apply a hypothetical divorce giving regard to what the applicant might reasonably have expected to receive if the marriage ended by divorce, then by death.
The Case Outcome
Mr Justice Peel, the National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court and Judge-in-Charge of Standard Family Orders who presided over this case, decided it was just and reasonable to determine the claim at the first ('disposal') hearing.
The claim was undefended. One of son’s confirmed he did not oppose the claim, the other, returned the envelope marked “return to sender” As the facts were not in dispute, it was not proportionate to await further clarification of the value of the estate, and in light of Mrs Kaur's age and poverty, J Peel concluded that reasonable financial provision had not been made and the divorce check pointed unerringly towards an equal division of the estate; this being the relevant law in line of the Supreme Court decision in Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17.
Peel J concluded that Mrs Kaur receive half of the net value of the estate, less her legal costs; an award of interim relief in the sum of £20,000; the disposition of the estate effected by the Will be varied accordingly, and an Order pursuant to the Inheritance Act 1975 be made providing Mrs Kaur with a 50% share of the [estimated £1.2m-£1.9m estate].
Sarah Townsend, Family Associate Solicitor
Lawson-West Solicitors, Leicester
See more about Sarah here….
“I can only imagine the shock of Mrs Kaur to find out that her husband of 66 years had left her and her four daughters with no financial support upon his death. Mrs Kaur had been by his side for all of their married life, assisting with the family clothing business and bringing-up their six children. In her later years she was suffering with ill-health and at aged 86 this would be the last thing you’d imagine happening to her.
Mr Singh obviously had his own reasons and objectives in dividing his estate only between his two male heirs in his Will, but I hope this case highlights the importance of making proper provision for your spouse and dependants within your will. When instructed in prenuptial agreements, cohabitation agreements or upon divorce or separation, I will always advise my clients to speak with one of our wills and probate team, they can then be sure that they are advised in the best way to protect their estate but with also taking into consideration what may happen if they do not properly provide for the ex-partner before final financial arrangements are made following their divorce."
Madhvi Panchal, Dispute Resolution Solicitor experienced in Contentious Probate says:
“Despite Mrs Kaur’s equal contribution towards their marriage, Mr Singh chose for only his male lineage to inherit his estate. Whilst the Court does not question the reasonableness of Mr Singh’s decision on ethical grounds, it considers the terms of the Will and reinforces that spouses/ civil partners owe each other obligations, even after death. I am not surprised by this decision and consider this case acknowledges that whilst individuals have testamentary freedom, the Act provides a balance against inequality, especially against a spouse.”
If you would like to discuss a potential claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act please contact the Dispute Resolution Team.
Should you wish to discuss your Will or wish to update it, please contact our Probate, Wills and Trusts Team.
For assistance with Divorce and/or Separation, please contact our Family Team.
Click on the links below to read more about Contentious Probate and this specific case:
Todays Wills and Probate - the case in the media
3PB - the case written about by counsel
Notes:
[Mrs Kaur pursued her claim under the abbreviated CPR Part 8 procedure, under which the court can determine claims on written evidence and will rarely direct oral evidence (paras 8.0.9 and 8.6.1 of the White Book)].
[1] Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (legislation.gov.uk)
View all
