High court reinforces strict time limits in inheritance act claims
Judgment has been handed down in this application under the Inheritance Act for permission to bring a claim out of time. The Claimant, who had delayed issuing proceedings for over 4 years from the date of the Grant of Probate, was unsuccessful in his application under s4 of the Act.
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides a route by which certain classes of people who might have expected to inherit from the estate of a deceased person but did not, can make an application to the court for reasonable financial provision from the estate.
The time limit for issuing proceedings
Proceedings under the Inheritance Act have to be issued within 6 months of the date of the Grant of Probate. In this case, the deceased died in June 2019, and probate was issued on 1 November 2019. The 6 month period expired on 1 May 2020.
s4 of the Inheritance Act provides that: “an application for an order under s.2 of the Act shall not, except with the permission of the court, be made after the end of the period of six months from the date on which representation with respect to the estate of the deceased is first taken out (but nothing prevents the making of an application before such representation is first taken out).” This provides a route for those who have not applied in time to get permission to pursue a case nonetheless.
There is a lot of case law relating to s4 and the circumstances in which permission should be granted, and well-established principles for making the decision. In this case, the judge found as follows:
Did the Claimant act promptly in respect of his application?
The answer was no. The Claimant had engaged several firms of solicitors – those representing him at the hearing were the fourth firm he had retained – and those firms were well known for contentious private client work. The judge found as a matter of fact that he would have known about his ability to bring an Inheritance Act claim by the summer of 2022. However, his claim was not issued until October 2024 and then not served for another 5 weeks.
The Claimant relied, to some extent, on his inability to pay legal fees as a reason for not issuing sooner. This was, unfortunately undermined by the fact that he spent quite a lot of time threatening other potential actions, and a lot of money on engaging private detectives to investigate the first Defendant. There was delay between instructing the second solicitors and the letter of claim being sent, and also a long delay (over a year) between the engagement of the third and fourth solicitors (the fourth firm agreeing to act on a CFA) during which time no steps were taken at all to pursue the claim.
Were negotiations begun within the time limit?
No, but on this point, the Judge was mindful of the fact that the Defendant repeatedly refused to negotiate.
Had the estate been distributed?
Yes, which would normally weigh against the Claimant, but the estate here was very large – the net estate was sworn at over £38,000,000. There were sufficient resources to make an award and still to leave the Defendant widow with ample provision. However, the Judge did take into account the fact that the Defendant was entitled to closure, but proceedings were still going on 6.5 years after the deceased’s death, and that she had been under the impression that the proceedings had been abandoned following several long delays in progressing the claim.
Are there any other potential remedies available to the Claimant?
Possibly, due to the fact that the Judge found as a matter of fact that the Claimant had not been advised of his potential claim until the summer of 2022 when he engaged the second set of solicitors. However, this will depend on the instructions given to the first solicitors.
Did the Claimant have a good arguable case?
In this case, the Claimant is an adult who was making a living as a personal trainer. He argued that he fell into the class of people described under s1(1)(d): a person (not being a child of the deceased) who in relation to any family in which the deceased at any time stood in the role of a parent, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family. His mother had been in a relationship with the deceased from 1995/96 until sometime between 2002 and 2004, and the Claimant had remained in contact with the deceased until 2012. There was, therefore, an arguable case that he had been treated as a child of the family from at least 1996 – 2002 and had stayed in contact with him until approximately 2012. There was a lot of evidence presented on when the relationship between the Claimant and the deceased came to an end and why, but it is clear from Ilott v Mitson that estrangement between a parent and child is not a bar to a claim.
However, the Claimant’s position foundered on the point of whether or not he required financial position. Unlike Ilott, he could not be said to be living in poverty – quite the opposite. His income was in the region of £70,000 per year and his expenditure broadly matched that. He argued that he had very large debts, including to HMRC, but the Judge noted that some of these appeared to be overstated. His claims of poverty were not helped by the fact that he had gone to some lengths to project a glamorous lifestyle which he said was to support his personal training business but which the judge felt was confirmation of a willingness to tell untruths, at least in a business or quasi-business context.
It was also relevant that the deceased had no responsibilities towards the Claimant immediately before his death, having not had contact with him since around 2012. The Claimant argued that the deceased had made representations to him that he would inherit his property business, but there was no suggestion that he had acted to his detriment in any way on those representations. He also argued that the standard of living against which his financial needs should be assessed was a high one, whereas the judge found the appropriate standard of living to be that which was capable of maintaining from his own resources and earnings. His income is sufficient to provide for the cost of his daily living. The judge considered what the outcome would be for the s4 application if the higher standard of maintenance were felt to be justified but thought that this was not a decision which any judge could properly come to.
Permission was therefore refused under s4. What should we take from this?
- If the time limit to bring an Inheritance Act claim has been missed, the potential claimant must act quickly. Long delays in progressing the matter definitely counted against the Claimant in this case.
- The potential claimant needs to establish that they have a case with a real prospect of success. If the claim is strong, this may well increase the prospects of permission being granted.
- Claims by adult children, or those treated as children, can succeed even despite a period of estrangement, but the court will be interested in the reasons for the estrangement.
- Claimants need to be realistic about the level of maintenance which might be provided. The fact that there is a very large estate does not necessarily mean that a very high level of maintenance will be ordered.
Our Wills, Trusts & Estates Disputes team has extensive experience representing both claimants and defendants in Inheritance Act claims. If you need advice on bringing or defending a claim against an estate, please contact one of our Contentious Wills, Trusts & Probate specialists on 0800 2800 421.
