Jessop v Jessop: CA 2 Jan 1992

The court considered the provision to be made under the 1975 Act for a surviving spouse: ‘In his argument in this court Mr. Vane relied strongly on s 3(2) and referred us to a recent case in this court, Moody v. Stevenson, a decision of Mustill LJ and Waite J which appears to give great prominence to the requirements of s 3(2) in a case of this kind. On the other side, Mr. Harrap referred us to a further passage in the judgment of Oliver LJ in Re Besterman deceased at p 469, which suggests that no greater prominence is required to be given to that consideration than to any of the others to which the court must have regard. It seems that Re Besterman deceased was not referred to in Moody v. Stevenson. In my view it is unnecessary for us to enter upon any possible conflict between those two decisions and I do not propose to do so.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ, McCowan LJ, Sir John Megaw

Citations:

[1992] 1 FLR 591

Statutes:

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 3(2)

Citing:

CitedMoody v Stevenson CA 12-Jul-1991
The widower aged 81, appealed against refusal of provision under the 1975 Act from his wife’s estate. She had left him nothing. The judge at first instance had found, applying Styler, that her treatment was not unreasonable, and that therefore no . .
CitedRe Besterman, decd CA 1984
In the case of an application under the Act by a surviving spouse, maintenance is not the only, or even the dominant, consideration to be taken into account by the court. ‘In an application under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the . .

Cited by:

CitedKrubert, Re; Krubert v Davis and Others CA 27-Jun-1996
The beneficiaries under the will appealed against an order under the 1975 Act, effectively transferring the entire estate to the surviving spouse.
Held: The effect of sections 1, 2 and the other material provisions of the 1975 Act is that on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Wills and Probate

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.196903