Family Law Hub

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Statute, published: 31/12/1975


Items referring to this

  • Appeal by daughter in Inheritance Act proceedings where her estranged mother had left her money to cat charities. Appeal allowed, original order set aside for error because the DJ had failed to give reasons for his approach on the issue of maintenance and daughter awarded £163k primarily to buy her house. Judgment, 27/07/2015, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • Judgment, 13/03/2013, free
  • In a tweet: I(PFD)A 1975 provision denied due to claimant's financial circumstances being a "lifestyle choice" Judgment, 07/11/2016, free
  • W was seeking to set aside a transaction, where H had transferred £1.75M to his son before their divorce, so as to bring the sum back into the estate. She wished to have the s423 Insolvency Act 1986 route available to her as well as the statutory route under s10 of the Inheritance Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975. The judge declined to dismiss her s423 application and the question of costs was adjourned. Judgment, 09/01/2014, free
  • W was seeking to set aside a transaction, where H had transferred £1.75M to his son before their divorce, so as to bring the sum back into the estate. Case note, 18/02/2014, free
  • The Claimant's claim was for reasonable financial provision pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 after his partner of more than 20 years died. The Claimant was granted a life interest in one half of the net proceeds of sale of her house. Judgment, 23/08/2018, free
  • Case note, 07/05/2009, members only
  • The appellant's husband had died in 2005 and probate was granted in 2006. This was an appeal against the refusal to give permission for the appellant to make an application for an order under section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 where the appellant contended that the disposition effected by the deceased’s will shortly before he died was not such as to make reasonable financial provision for her. Judgment, 29/10/2013, free
  • The claimant was the third wife of the deceased (who died in 1990) and was making three primary claims: (1) that she was now the sole beneficial owner of the property; (2) in the alternative, that she and the defendants (the deceased's children from his first marriage) became equitable co-owners of the property; (3) in the further alternative, she said that she was entitled, as against the deceased's estate, to her statutory legacy and a capitalised life interest, plus interest at 6% per annum since the date of his death. Judgment, 14/09/2018, free
  • A complicated Inheritance Act case whereby the deceased's sons claimed that there was a mistake in the Will. The Will contained a clause in which the sons were left equal shares in a company ('Properties'), which was in fact a company in which the deceased never held any shares. The sons claimed that their father meant that they should be left shares in a different company ('Grangeway'). If the deceased had meant the Will to read Properties, his entire estate, including the shares in Grangeway, would pass to his second wife. There were also claims by the deceased's second wife about sham trusts being set up to transfer properties to Grangeway, documents being falsified, a denial that she had transferred her shares in Grangeway back to the deceased and that the deceased did not have capacity or was under undue influence. Judgment, 06/03/2014, free
  • Precedent, 04/04/2012, members only
  • Case note, 23/11/2011, members only
  • This precedent is intended to provide a number of specimen clauses. It cannot be comprehensive and further clauses may be required to fit individual circumstances; equally, substantial deletions will invariably be required for the sake of brevity. Precedent, 04/04/2012, members only
  • Judgment in Inheritance Act proceedings where the claimant (the deceased's 2nd wife) was seeking on order against the deemed "net estate", which she claimed was larger than that declared to HMRC and had been diminished by gifts to other family members. Mostyn J ordered that further documents be disclosed so that the merits of the claim could be considered, rejecting the defendants application for summary judgment. Judgment, 01/04/2015, free
  • Inheritance Act claim concerning a lump sum payable under a health service pension which, according to the judge, raises "an interesting, and apparently novel, point as to the true scope of section 8(1) of the 1975 Act" Judgment, 29/10/2014, free
  • Inheritance Act claim concerning a lump sum payable under a health service pension which, according to the judge, raises "an interesting, and apparently novel, point as to the true scope of section 8(1) of the 1975 Act" Case note, 20/11/2014, members only
  • Appeal against finding that the appellant had only a 25% beneficial interest in a property in which she had lived unmarried with her partner for over 33 years and that was now subject of possession proceedings. She also appealed against decision that her share be paid out of remaining proceeds of sale. Both appeals dismissed. Judgment, 10/02/2015, free
  • Judgment, 07/05/2013, free
  • Guidance on the relevance of the age of the parties in FP proceedings Practice note, 15/08/2014, members only
  • In a tweet: Whether daughter entitled to dairy farm following detrimental reliance on late father's assurances Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
  • Case note, 30/03/2010, members only
  • Claimant's appeal against the provision made to her by order of the District Judge under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The claimant's mother, who was estranged from her daughter, died and left her estate to three charities. The District Judge concluded that it was an "unreasonable result" that no provision at all was made for the claimant in circumstances where she was in some financial need and awarded her £50,000. The claimant appealed the sum but she lost, the judge saying that the District Judge was not manifestly wrong, or even wrong, in taking the view that notwithstanding that the claimant and her husband and family lived in straightened circumstances, the fact they had done so for so many years did not justify an award which improved their circumstances. Judgment, 05/03/2014, free
  • Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which held that the DJ had made 2 errors when awarding the Claimant just £50,000 after the Claimant's estranged mother left her estate to various charities, making no provision for her daughter. The Court of Appeal re-evaluated the claim for itself, and awarded the Claimant £143,000 to buy the home she lived in. The Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal decision and the DJ's order has been restored. Judgment, 15/03/2017, free
  • Guidance on the new act which came into force 1 October 2014 Practice note, 20/11/2014, members only
  • Further judgment in long running Inheritance Act proceedings confirming that the claimant was eligible under the terms of section 1(1A) of the 1975 Act Judgment, 19/06/2014, free
  • Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act) 1975 application where the deceased's second wife was claiming that he was domiciled in the UK at the time of his death, but defendants to the claim argued that he was domiciled in Gambia and thus the wife had no claim under the 1975 Act. Judgment, 17/02/2016, free
  • Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act) 1975 application Case note, 17/03/2016, members only
  • Judgment, 21/03/2007, free
  • An appeal under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 by the daughter of the deceased mother against an order that the deceased's house be transferred for a sum of £385,000 to the Defendant, who had lived with the deceased in the house for 20 years. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 19/07/2016, free
  • Case note, 26/04/2012, free
  • Appeal in Inheritance Act proceedings concerning beneficial interests in an insurance policy and where the appellant had been divorcing the deceased at the time of her death. Judgment, 29/07/2014, free
  • Judgment, 10/04/2013, free
  • Case note, 03/07/2009, members only
  • In brief: Here the defendant had applied for an adjournment of the trial. However, the medical evidence supporting her application was erroneously not shown to the trial judge, the defendant did not turn up, he refused to adjourn and an order was made in the claimants’ favour (the estate was split £69,000 to the defendant and £630,000 to the claimants). On appeal it was found that the defendant had not actually made an application under r.39.3(5) CPR 1998 and had in any event not satisfied the three criteria under r.39.3 needed to make a successful application to set aside a judgment. The judgment could not be set aside. In terms of the appeal against the substantive award, the court concluded that there was no basis for interfering with it save to the extent that fresh evidence that wad admitted modestly reduced the award made to the original claimants. Judgment, 22/10/2018, free
  • Financial remedy proceedings in which the court had to decide to what extent, if any, H should pay a lump sum to W and how to deal with the parties' pension entitlements. Judgment, 23/07/2015, free
  • The wife of the deceased husband was appealing the transfer of his beneficial interest in their jointly owned property to his long term partner where the court held that the terms of his will was not such as to make reasonable financial provision for his partner under section 2(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 13/03/2017, free
  • An Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim where the deceased husband's will did not provide for one of his sons and his wife. The case was further complicated by an ambiguity in how the only asset, a house, was owned by the husband and another son - whether as tenants in common or as joint tenants. The final hearing was adjourned because there was huge ambiguity as to the legal position of the family home and whether or not there was any money left in D’s estate, one of the defendants had arrived at court to find himself unrepresented and facing an application that had not been served on him and the bundle had also failed to include a copy of the will. Judgment, 24/04/2018, free
  • Judgment, 17/03/2008, free
  • Application for cost allowance to fund Schedule 1 Children Act litigation where the child was conceived through AI to lesbian parents but where the respondent biological father also had parental responsibility. The application was granted largely because the complexity of the case was such that the prospect of the applicants acting as litigants in person would "be a gross inequality of arms, and arguably a violation of their rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights". Judgment, 10/03/2015, free
  • Judgment, 15/10/2012, free
  • Case note, 19/11/2012, free
  • A statutory charge was not and could not be applicable to the applicant's award of damages in a HRA claim. Judgment, 14/11/2016, free
  • Case note, 14/06/2011, members only
  • Training notes to accompany the webinar, presented by Philip Way and Clive Weir on 2 October 2013 Training note, 09/10/2013, members only
  • As part of their divorce settlement, the parties agreed that the ex-wife would keep the first £100,000 of any inheritance from her mother and the balance over that amount would be split equally between them. The mother left exactly £100,000 to the ex-wife with the remaining £150,000 going to the ex-wife's children. The ex-husband brought a probate claim to challenge the validity of the ex-wife's mother's will, alleging that it was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The Deputy Master decided that H had no sufficient interest in the will and therefore had no standing to bring the claim. The ex-husband's appeal against that decision was allowed. Judgment, 27/05/2016, free
  • The court held that a potential Inheritance Act claim by a surviving husband against his deceased wife's estate abates on the death of the husband. Thus the daughter of the deceased husband could not bring a claim under the Act after he had also died. However, the court allowed an amendment to the claim, the claimant relying on section 2(1)(f) of the 1975 Act which says that the Court has the power to vary "any ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement (including such a settlement made by will) made on the parties to a marriage to which the deceased was one of the parties, the variation being for the benefit of the surviving party to that marriage, or any child of that marriage, or any person who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage." Here the claimant would have to show that she was "treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage." Judgment, 21/02/2017, free
  • An application by the husband for an order granting permission to appeal the order of a Deputy District Judge whereby he stayed the wife's divorce proceedings but excepted from that stay her application for a Legal Services Payment Order. Mr Justice Mostyn gave permission for the appeal and allowed it, saying that by the terms of FPR 2010 rule 9.7(1) an application for an LSPO is for an interim order, just as is an application for an order for maintenance pending suit. Such an application is dependent for its existence and validity on the continuance of the main suit. If the main suit is stayed then all subsidiary ancillary applications for financial relief are stayed, and a fortiori all applications and orders for interim relief, whether for maintenance pending suit or an LSPO. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
  • Training notes to accompany Max Lewis' webinar on divorces involving older couples. Training note, 18/11/2013, members only
  • Case note, 08/07/2011, members only
  • Judgment, 10/10/2007, free
  • Judgment, 25/04/2007, free
  • Judgment, 03/06/2012, free
  • Application by the ex wife for financial remedy 20 years after a maintenance agreement was made but never concluded by an order of the court Judgment, 15/04/2013, free
  • Judgment, 04/06/2012, free
  • Case note, 13/06/2012, members only
  • The claimant claimed reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 out of the estate of her late partner, who had left her nothing. An order was made which transferred one of the properties to her. Judgment, 03/04/2018, free
  • The Claimants brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against the executors of the estate of their late father that their father, who had remarried since divorcing their mother, intended that following his death his estate should take over responsibility for making payments to them until they were 18 or had completed tertiary education as set out in an order made in 2007 . Judgment, 14/05/2018, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
  • CoA dismisses an appeal against a decision of a barrister sitting as a deputy High Court judge not to recuse herself Judgment, 21/12/2015, free
  • Case note, 31/01/2009, members only
  • Maintenance deed found to be valid and enforceable and W entitled to damages for repudiation of contract Judgment, 09/03/2018, members only

Published: 31/12/1975


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item