Key Facts
- •Neil and Julie Archibald brought claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against the estates of Neil's deceased parents, Rosemary and Malcolm Archibald.
- •Neil died during the proceedings.
- •The claims alleged insufficient financial provision was made for Neil and Julie in the wills.
- •The claims were brought significantly outside the statutory time limit.
- •Preliminary issues concerned Julie's standing to claim, the survival of Neil's claim after his death, and permission to bring the claims out of time.
Legal Principles
Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 are personal to the applicant and do not survive their death.
Whyte v Ticehurst [1986] Fam 64, Re Bramwell deceased [1988] 2 FLR 263, Roberts v Fresco [2017] EWHC 283 (Ch), Unger v Ul-Hasan [2023] UKSC 22
To have standing under section 1(1)(d) of the 1975 Act, an applicant must have been treated by the deceased as a child of the family. The nature and quality of the relationship is key, needing more than simple affection or kindness.
In re Callaghan, decd [1985] Fam 1, In re Leach, decd [1986] Ch 226, Law Commission Report No. 331
The court has discretion under section 4 of the 1975 Act to grant permission to bring claims out of time, considering factors such as promptness, negotiations, distribution of the estate, alternative remedies, and the strength of the claim.
Berger v Berger [2014] WTLR 35, Re Salmon [1981] Ch 167, Re Dennis [1981] 2 All ER 140, Cowan v Foreman [2020] Fam 129, Re Bhusate [2019] EWHC 470 (Ch)
Outcomes
Neil's claim does not survive his death.
Claims under the 1975 Act are personal and end with the applicant's death. The nature of the claim, focusing on maintenance needs, renders it unviable after death.
Julie lacks standing to bring a claim under section 1(1)(d) of the 1975 Act.
The evidence did not demonstrate a parent-child relationship between Julie and Rosemary or Malcolm; their relationship remained that of daughter-in-law and parents.
Permission to bring the claims out of time is denied.
The delay was significant, with insufficient justification. The claims were viewed as reactions to the trustees' decisions on discretionary powers, not a genuine need for financial provision that merited an extension.