Wayne Anthony Larsen & Anor v Heather Diane Annan
[2023] EWHC 662 (Ch)
Shama Amnir & Ors. v Fahid Bala & Ors.
16 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1054 (Ch)
High Court
A family fought over their dad's money after he died. The judge had to decide how to split the money fairly between the mom and kids, one of whom has disabilities, but there wasn't enough to go around. The judge gave most of the money to the mom for a house, and some to the disabled child for help, but not enough for everyone to get everything they wanted.
Key Facts
- •Mohammed Amnir Bala died on 20 March 2019, leaving a significant estate including properties and business assets.
- •Four claimants (Shama Amnir, AB, CD, and MN) brought claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision.
- •Shama is the deceased's surviving spouse; AB, CD, and MN are his children (MN is a protected party with disabilities).
- •Fahid Bala, a son of the deceased, acted as executor despite MN's lack of capacity and made several disputed actions concerning the estate.
- •The deceased's will established a discretionary trust leaving the bulk of the estate to trustees, with a letter of wishes suggesting a distribution scheme.
- •A preliminary trial ('Subsidiary Claim') determined that Fahid had no beneficial interest in properties he had claimed.
- •Significant disputes of fact arose regarding MN's residence and whether attempts were made to arrange her marriage.
- •The estate's net value was uncertain due to ongoing administration and disputes.
Legal Principles
Reasonable financial provision for a surviving spouse is what's reasonable in all circumstances, not necessarily limited to maintenance.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 1(2)
Reasonable financial provision for children is for their maintenance; needs are a necessary but not sufficient condition for an order.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 1(2)(b); Ilott v Mitson (No.2) [2018] AC 545
The court assesses claims objectively, considering the reasonableness of the will's outcome, not the testator's actions.
Ilott v Mitson (No.2) [2018] AC 545; In re Coventry [1980] Ch 461
In spousal claims, the court considers what a divorce settlement would have been, taking into account all circumstances; equality is a starting point but not a presumption.
Cunliffe v Fielden [2006] Ch 361; Miller v Miller [2006] 2 AC 618; P v G [2006] 1 FLR 431; Re Besterman [1984] 1 Ch 458
The court considers financial needs and resources of all applicants and beneficiaries; a moral claim beyond blood relation may be needed for adult children.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 3(1)(b); Ilott v Mitson (No.2) [2018] AC 545
In considering financial provision, the court must consider the welfare of any minor child of the family.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25(1)
Costs in 1975 Act cases follow general civil litigation rules, not matrimonial rules.
Lilleyman v Lilleyman (No.2) [2012] 1 WLR 2801; In re Fullard [1982] Fam 42; Hirachand v Hirachand [2022] 1 WLR 1162
Outcomes
Claimants' costs are to be paid from the estate before other awards are considered.
All claimants agreed, and the court considered it equitable given the competing claims exhausting the estate.
Shama receives £550,000 (or the entire estate if less than this remains after costs) for housing, with a further £150,000 from the remaining estate following a 50/50 split with MN.
Prioritizes housing for Shama and her children and makes limited provision for MN, whose independent living is deemed unviable given estate size.
MN receives £150,000 (or a portion of any excess above £850,000), held in trust for her care and support.
Recognizes MN's needs but acknowledges the estate's limitations; independent living is unfeasible.
No separate provision for AB and CD beyond what's included in Shama's award.
Shama has parental responsibility and will meet their needs; separate awards are deemed impractical and potentially disadvantageous.
No provision for other beneficiaries (Fahid, Mrs Begum, Madeha, Arman, EF).
The estate is insufficient to meet claimants' needs; other beneficiaries are adults with earning capacity or other resources.
Similar Cases
Valerie May Olga Sim v Kate Ellen Elizabeth Pimlott & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2296 (Ch)
Srendarjit Kaur Jassal v Sajad Ali Shah & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2214 (Ch)
The Estate of Neil Douglas Archibald (deceased) & Anor v Alistair James Stuart & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2515 (Ch)
Joanna Claire Daley v Susan Amanda Hodges
[2023] EWHC 3397 (Ch)