Eligible applicants

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Harriet moved into Stephen’s home over three years ago, entering a romantic relationship resembling that of a married couple. She did not contribute to the mortgage but paid for household expenses with her limited earnings. Stephen routinely covered Harriet’s financial shortfalls, including her medical bills and personal costs, and he told friends that he intended to care for her indefinitely. Stephen died unexpectedly, leaving a will that bequeathed his entire estate to an old family friend, with no provision for Harriet. Harriet now wishes to claim financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.


Which of the following best supports Harriet’s eligibility to make a claim on Stephen’s estate under the Act?

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 establishes a legal mechanism allowing certain individuals to apply for reasonable financial provision from the estate of a deceased person when the will or intestacy rules fail to make such provision. The Act specifies categories of eligible applicants and sets out the principles and requirements that courts consider when assessing claims. This article examines the eligibility criteria, core principles, and key requirements under the Act, highlighting important case law and judicial considerations influencing inheritance disputes in the United Kingdom.

Eligible Applicants: Categories and Criteria

Under the Act, several distinct categories of individuals may be eligible to make a claim for financial provision. Understanding these categories is essential, as each comes with specific considerations and details to bear in mind.

1. Spouses and Civil Partners

Spouses and civil partners occupy a prominent position under the Act. They are afforded strong legal standing when seeking financial provision from a deceased partner's estate. This legal protection serves as a robust shield, ensuring that those who have shared a life together are not left vulnerable after a partner's death. In the landmark case of Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, the courts reinforced the priority given to spouses and civil partners, emphasizing their favored status in inheritance claims.

2. Former Spouses and Civil Partners

Former spouses or civil partners, who have not remarried or entered into a new civil partnership, may also be eligible to apply. The courts consider any ongoing financial obligations or responsibilities the deceased may have had towards a former partner. For example, in Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch), the court examined the nature of the relationship and the financial arrangements following the dissolution to determine eligibility.

3. Cohabitees

Individuals who were living with the deceased in the same household for at least two years immediately before the death, in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership, can make a claim under the Act. Picture long-term companions sharing their lives without formal recognition—much like an unregistered team working toward common goals. The case of Churchill v Roach [2002] EWHC 3230 (Ch) illustrates how the courts acknowledge and protect the interests of cohabitees, ensuring they are not overlooked in inheritance matters.

4. Children

The category of children includes biological, adopted, and, in some cases, stepchildren who were treated as a child of the family. When assessing claims by children, the courts carefully examine their financial needs and the relationship with the deceased. The case of Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 again provides valuable examples, particularly regarding claims by adult children, highlighting the complexities involved when the claimant is independent but argues for reasonable provision.

5. Dependants

Any person who was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased immediately before death may be eligible as a dependant. This category is broad, encompassing various relationships that may not fit neatly into the other categories. For instance, in Rees v Newbery [1998] 1 FLR 1041, the court considered whether the claimant was being substantially supported by the deceased, taking into account the nature and context of the financial assistance provided.

Key Concepts: Financial Dependency and Reasonable Provision

Two central concepts are important in applications made under the Act: financial dependency and reasonable provision.

Financial Dependency

Applicants must demonstrate that they were substantially reliant on the deceased for financial support at the time of death. Picture this dependency as leaning on a sturdy pillar; when that support is removed, the impact is significant. Detailed evidence of financial arrangements, contributions, and the extent of reliance is critical in supporting such claims.

Reasonable Provision

The courts assess what constitutes "reasonable financial provision" for the applicant in the circumstances. This assessment involves careful balancing of the applicant's needs, the size of the estate, and the interests of other beneficiaries. It's akin to piecing together a complex puzzle—finding the right fit for everyone involved. The standard for reasonable provision may differ depending on the category of applicant; for spouses and civil partners, it can be more generous, reflecting what a reasonable spouse might expect to receive.

Judicial Considerations and Influential Case Law

When evaluating claims under the Act, courts consider several factors to reach a fair and just decision.

1. Financial Resources and Needs

The current and foreseeable financial needs and resources of the applicant are important. In Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of evaluating the applicant's financial circumstances in detail, including any potential earning capacity and existing assets.

2. Obligations and Responsibilities of the Deceased

Courts examine any moral or legal obligations the deceased had towards the applicant. For instance, in Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461, the court considered the deceased's responsibilities towards a former spouse when determining reasonable provision.

3. Size and Nature of the Estate

The overall value of the estate and its composition can influence the court's decision. A modest estate may limit the extent of provision that can be reasonably made. The case of Nahajec v Fowle [2017] EW Misc 11 (CC) demonstrates how the estate's size affects the outcome of claims.

4. Disabilities of the Applicant

Any physical or mental disabilities affecting the applicant's financial needs are considered. In Re B (Deceased) [2000] Ch 662, the court examined the applicant's health issues when assessing the claim.

5. Conduct of the Applicant and Others

The behavior of the applicant and other parties may be relevant. Although courts are cautious not to unduly penalize applicants for behavior, significant misbehavior may impact the assessment. The case of Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797 explores the extent to which estrangement and family issues influence the court's decision.

Complex Scenarios and Practical Applications

Inheritance disputes often involve complicated situations requiring careful legal analysis.

Scenario 1: Competing Claims in Blended Families

Consider a modern family where the deceased had children from a previous marriage and a surviving cohabiting partner. The courts must balance the needs and expectations of all parties, which can be a delicate task. In Re Hancock [1998] 2 FLR 346, the court addressed such complexities, weighing the claims of children against those of a long-term partner.

Scenario 2: Adult Child with Fluctuating Financial Needs

An adult child who has intermittent financial difficulties may seek provision under the Act. The courts assess the extent of the child's needs and their ability to meet them independently. In Espinosa v Bourke [1999] 1 FLR 747, the court considered the claimant's sporadic employment and financial instability.

Scenario 3: Cohabitee vs. Estranged Spouse

A situation where both a cohabiting partner and an estranged spouse make claims can present unique challenges. The court must evaluate the legitimacy and strength of each claim. In Churchill v Roach [2002] EWHC 3230 (Ch), the court examined such competing interests, highlighting the careful consideration required.

Conclusion

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 incorporates various legal principles to address the realities of modern familial and financial relationships. By defining specific categories of eligible applicants and outlining the factors courts must consider, the Act provides a structured approach to inheritance disputes. Influential cases such as Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 highlight how courts balance individual needs, testamentary freedom, and the equitable distribution of an estate. Understanding how these principles interact is essential for appreciating how claims are assessed and adjudicated, especially in complex scenarios where multiple factors come together.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Barbri SQE
One-time Fee
$3,800-6,900
BPP SQE
One-time Fee
$5,400-8,200
College of Legal P...
One-time Fee
$2,300-9,100
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Law Training Centr...
One-time Fee
$500-6,200
QLTS SQE
One-time Fee
$2,500-3,800
University of Law...
One-time Fee
$6,200-22,400

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal