Mallidi v Green

Administration of Estates

In this case Sidney Ross acted for the Defendants, the three adult children of Derek Graham Snowden who died in a road traffic accident on 28th December 2004, intestate. They were the only persons entitled to take on his intestacy, and letters of administration were granted to the First Defendant ("Daniel") on 3rd March 2006. The value of Mr Snowden's estate was certified on the grant of letters of administration as £462,332 gross, £319,769 net. The other resources which became available as a result of his death were benefits under his occupational pension scheme. The lump sum death benefit of £149,859.56 was paid to his estate, but following her submission of the necessary declaration, the First Claimant was awarded a dependant's pension of £9,764 per year, index-linked. At the time of the claim, in August 2006, the pension was being paid at the rate of £725 per month, equating to £8,700 per year, presumably net of basic rate income tax.

There were two claimants. The First Claimant was Mrs Mallidi, who claimed in the alternative as a cohabitant in accordance with sub-Ss.1(1)(ba) and 1(1A) of the 1975 Act, and as a person being wholly or partly maintained by the deceased immediately before his death, in accordance with sub-S.1(1)(e). The Second Claimant, who was born on 28th July 1985, was the daughter of the First Claimant by her marriage to Rama Mohana Reddy Mallidi, which was dissolved by decree absolute on 4th October 1999. Her claim was on the basis that Mr Snowden was maintaining her before she went to University and in 2003-04 while she was at Bangor University. There is authority that in such circumstances there is no compelling reason for the Court to make provision for her subsequent maintenance. In Hocking and another v Hocking (unreported, 12th June 1997) the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge not to order provision for the adult daughters of the deceased over and above what was reasonable for their maintenance while they were still in higher education.

In addition to her claim under the 1975 Act, the First Claimant made a claim as a dependant under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 which was settled on 19th April 2007 in the sum of £328,000. It was not apportioned between herself and her children. She also made a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered by her in the same accident which had not been settled by February 2008, shortly before her 1975 Act claim was due to be heard. At that time she had £200,000 of that sum invested and, at age 48, the sum of £200,000 would have funded a net income need of £11,633 which, added to her dependant's pension, equated to an annual income of approximately £20,000. Her daughter was not dependent on her, and she had significant earning capacity; she had worked in a number of jobs, including the running of a bed and breakfast establishment in a property at 9 Park Road, Rugby, which she claimed to have been purchased partly with joint savings but which was owned by Mr Snowden. At no time did she intimate a claim to a beneficial interest in that property.

The First Claimant did not adduce any evidence that her financial resources were inadequate to cover her daily living costs other than her housing costs. She had no security of tenure in 9 Park Road so, on the face of it, she had a case that her housing needs should have been provided for out of the deceased's estate. However, although at the time of Mr Snowden's death she owned another property in Rugby, at 41 Manor Road, she transferred it, apparently for no consideration, to her brother, who was registered as sole proprietor on 26th January 2005. In her witness statements she gave two wholly inconsistent accounts of the reasons for that transaction. It is well settled that the court is entitled to take into account improvident behaviour by a claimant and reduce an award accordingly, or dismiss the claim; see Re Farrow [1987] 1 FLR 205, Rhodes v Dean (Court of Appeal, unreported, 28th March 1986) and Robinson v Fernsby and anor [2004] WTLR 257, CA.

The claim did not go to trial; the parties entered into an agreement as to the disposition of various chattels and the terms on which Mrs Mallidi would be permitted to buy 9 Park Road out of the deceased's estate, but she did not receive any monetary payment.