Gully v Dix; In re Dix deceased: CA 21 Jan 2004

The claimant sought provision from the estate under the Act. She had cohabited with the deceased for many years, but had moved out several months before the death because of her concern for his drunkenness which lead to threats of self harm.
Held: The Act should be read to allow the claim. The issue was whether the claimant’s departure for three months meant that she was unable to show that she had lived with, or was being maintained by, the deceased throughout the last two years of his life. In the light of the authorities, the judge looked to the settled state of affairs before the death. For these purposes the question was whether the relationship had truly come to an end. This relationship had not.


Ward LJ, Mummery LJ, Rix LJ


Times 28-Jan-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 139, [2004] 1 FLR 918




Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 1, Law Reform (Successors) Act 1995


England and Wales


CitedJelley v Illife CA 1981
The court referred to the case of In re Beaumont and continued: ‘In considering whether a person is being maintained immediately before the death of the deceased, it is the settled basis or general arrangement between the parties as regards . .
CitedIn re Beaumont, Deceased; Martin v Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd 1980
The words in the section ‘immediately before’ in the context of the maintenance of the claimant by the deceased before the death, were not to be construed literally. The situation was to be viewed as the general arrangements for maintenance in place . .
CitedRex v Creamer CCA 1919
The prosecution had to prove in a receiving case that the husband and wife were not ‘living together’. Held ‘A husband and wife are living together not only when they are residing together in the same house, but also when they are living in . .
CitedNugent-Head v Jacob HL 1948
A wife was held still to be ‘living with her husband’ who had been absent on military service for more than three years because there had been ‘no rupture of matrimonial relations.’ . .
CitedSantos v Santos CA 16-Feb-1972
The court considered whether one party who lived in Spain and the other who lived mainly, but not exclusively, in England, were, despite several periods of close cohabitation, living apart.
Held: Mere physical separation without more did not . .

Cited by:

CitedWitkowska v Kaminski ChD 25-Jul-2006
The claimant sought provision from the estate claiming to have lived with the deceased as his partner for the two years preceding his death. She appealed an order which would be enough to allow her to live in Poland, but not in England. She said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193409