Shama Amnir & Ors. v Fahid Bala & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 1054 (Ch)
Valerie May Olga Sim v Kate Ellen Elizabeth Pimlott & Ors
5 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 2296 (Ch)
High Court
A widow sued her late husband's family for more money. The judge didn't believe her stories of abuse. The husband's will was mostly fair, but the judge made the family give the widow money for a new house because she would otherwise be homeless.
Key Facts
- •Valerie Sim (Claimant) claimed reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband, Dr David Morrice Sim, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
- •Dr. Sim's will included conditional bequests to Valerie totaling £375,000, contingent upon her releasing certain claims and vacating the matrimonial home.
- •Valerie did not fulfill the conditions precedent and instead pursued a claim under the 1975 Act.
- •The will left the residue of the estate to Dr. Sim's children from previous marriages.
- •The trial involved extensive evidence from multiple witnesses, including the claimant, her son, and Dr. Sim's other children and grandchildren.
- •The court heard expert evidence on property valuations in England and Dubai, financial planning, and Sharia law.
- •Valerie's credibility as a witness was challenged due to inconsistencies and questionable allegations.
Legal Principles
Reasonable financial provision for a surviving spouse under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 considers financial resources and needs, obligations of the deceased, size of the estate, disabilities, and conduct.
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, sections 1, 2, 3
The court must consider whether the will's disposition of the estate is objectively unreasonable in failing to make adequate provision for the applicant.
Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17
The divorce cross-check (considering what a spouse might reasonably expect on divorce) is not a strict rule but a factor to consider amongst others.
Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch)
A discretionary trust or terminable life interest does not automatically mean unreasonable financial provision hasn't been made.
Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336
Outcomes
Valerie Sim's claim for reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act was largely dismissed.
The court found Valerie's evidence unreliable and inconsistent, rejecting her claims of domestic abuse and concluding the will made objectively reasonable financial provision.
The court upheld the validity of the conditions precedent in Dr. Sim's will, meaning Valerie's failure to meet them barred her from the conditional bequests.
It was considered reasonable to include conditions designed to discourage an unwarranted claim and reduce litigation costs.
The court ordered the trustees to set aside up to £400,000 to purchase a property for Valerie to occupy rent-free for the rest of her life.
This was deemed necessary to address the fact that the original will's disposition, while reasonable in other respects, would have left Valerie homeless upon sale of the matrimonial home.
Claims for specific gifts (piano, Mercedes, Jaguar) were dismissed; claims for paintings and a replacement vehicle for a written-off Porsche were upheld.
Based on assessment of evidence concerning the gifts.