Exploring Conduct Considerations in Inheritance Claims Under the 1975 Act
Delve into the intricacies of how conduct, both positive and negative, can impact inheritance cases under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Understand the significance of behavior in determining reasonable financial provision and the nuances of relying on or disregarding bad conduct in such matters.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Claimants conduct in 1975 Act Claims: Irrelevant, boring and wasteful of costs? Sarah Bayliss
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Section 3 factors (1) Where an application is made for an order under section 2 of this Act, the court shall, in determining whether the disposition of the deceased s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant and, if the court considers that reasonable financial provision has not been made, in determining whether and in what manner it shall exercise its powers under that section, have regard to the following matters, that is to say (g) any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant.
When to rely on bad behaviour? Where it is relevant Where it is serious Re Snoek [1983] Fam Law 18; Gandhi v Patel [2002] 1 FLR 620; Baynes v Hedger [2009] EWCA Civ 374; K v L [2010] EWCA Civ 125 Where that conduct could reduce the Deceased s obligations and responsibilities under s 3(1)(d) Ilott v Mitson [2018] AC 545; Stephanides v Cohen [2002] EWHC 1869 (Fam) When not to? Lambert v Lambert [2002] EWCA Civ 1685; [2003] 1 FLR 139 Mohammed v Mohammed [2021] EWHC 2532 (Ch)
Re X Deceased Competing contentions Claimant: Deceased s girlfriend Claim for maintenance based on regular payments for rent and other expenses by the Deceased for a number of years prior to his death and a promise to leave her a lump sum in his will. Family (including executors and residuary beneficiaries) contended: Not the Deceased s girlfriend none of the family had ever met her or knew anything about her they would have known if he had a girlfriend; Deceased was unwell and vulnerable - exploited for financial gain; No promise to leave money in will; Payments improperly/fraudulently procured; Gambled away in trips to casinos or spent on foreign holidays.
PRACTICAL REALITIES Best points Evidence Credibility Time
CPR 44.4 (4) In deciding what order (if any) to make about costs, the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including (a) the conduct of all the parties; ... (5) The conduct of the parties includes (a) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings and in particular the extent to which the parties followed the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct or any relevant pre-action protocol; (b) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue; (c) the manner in which a party has pursued or defended its case or a particular allegation or issue; and (d) whether a claimant who has succeeded in the claim, in whole or in part, exaggerated its claim.
Claimants conduct in 1975 Act Claims: Irrelevant, boring and wasteful of costs? Sarah Bayliss
