S and G lived together in a same-sex relationship. They owned the house they lived in and another as tenants in common. G owned other properties which provided the couple with an income. The will of G did not leave S in a position to complete development of the properties, and he applied for reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act. He was out of time.
Held: The claim could proceed despite the delay. The couple were a family unit. However the claim itself failed. Sections 1(1)(ba) and 1(A) of the 1975 Act were discriminatory, and in breach of the claimant’s convention rights, and they needed to be read in such a fashion as made them compliant which was achieved by reading the provision for cohabitants living together as husband and wife as if they were living together as husband and wife. Notwithstanding the claimant’s difficulties, the testator’s other family commitments meant that the actual provision made for the claimant was reasonable. The duty toward the claimant did not extend to making capital provision available to repair the house. A claimant whose claim was considered under the earlier subsection could not use section 1(e) as a fallback position. G and S formed a family unit under art 8. Art, but that could not be used to create a right to peaceful possession of the property enjoyed by the couple before the death. Claims under the 1975 Act were not a right to property.
Citations:
[2005] WTLR 749
Statutes:
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 1, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Wills and Probate
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.229845
