Richards v Powell

Administration of Estates - Financial Provision

The claim was under S.1(1)(e), R claiming to be a person who had been wholly or partly maintained by the deceased, otherwise than for full valuable consideration, immediately before the date of his death. Administration of CP's estate was granted on 11.1.06 and the claim was issued shortly before the expiry of the 6-month period from that date. It was heard over three days in the Bristol District Registry during November 2007. Sidney Ross was instructed on behalf of the Defendants in October 2007, their case having up till then been conducted by local counsel.

CP had ceased to live with H temporarily in 1993 and permanently in about 1996, though he visited her from time to time. During that period he had formed a relationship with R but refused to divorce his wife as R wished him to do. R had herself been divorced in 1994 and there was a daughter of that marriage, born in April 1993.

The history of the relationship between CP and R falls into four parts. From May 1996 to about July 1998 they were not living together and apart from the last six months or so of that period he was not supporting her. During that period she was living in her former matrimonial home and she continued to do so until December 2001. She claimed to have been supporting him between August 1998 and December 2000. Between December 2001-February 2004 she was living with him at a property ("16BD") purchased by him with the aid of a mortgage, and was not paying rent. She then left, for reasons connected with difficulties over her daughter's schooling, moved into rented accommodation in March 2004, and did not move back to 16BD at the end of the school year. At the end of the year there was a quarrel arising from his continued refusal to divorce H and they each entered into relationships with other partners but these were short-lived. Although, so R asserted, they were reconciled and plans were made for her to return to 16BD and for work to be done on it in anticipation of her return, she continued to live in rented accommodation and was doing so when CP died, without those plans having been put into effect.

The crucial question for the Court was whether CP had been maintaining R immediately before his death. The relevant law states that in determining whether the Claimant was being maintained by the deceased immediately before his death, the Court is not to confine its attention to that period but to consider the totality of the relationship. In Gully v Dix [2004] WTLR 331 at 335B-337E, paragraphs 10-18, the Court of Appeal approved the following dictum of HH Judge Weeks QC at first instance, viz that the court must look at:-

"the settled state of affairs during the relationship between the parties and not the immediate de facto situation prevailing before the deceased's death..."

The provision of rent-free accommodation would generally be regarded as a substantial contribution to the reasonable needs of the claimant for the purposes of S.1(3) of the 1975 Act, but that had ceased some 19 months before CP's death. It was R's case that apart from two months in the spring of 2005, CP had been paying her rent in the various properties which she successively occupied during those 19 months, and that in view of the plans which she and CP had made for their future together, reasonable provision for her would be such as to provide her with a home for her life. Oral evidence in support of R's case was given by the owners of the rented properties and by J, a professional colleague of CP who knew him very well and was also well acquainted with R.

For the Defendants it was contended that CP's financial records were not consistent with his having made regular payments of R's rent; but if the Court nevertheless found that such payments had been made, CP should be taken to have assumed responsibility for her maintenance only on a temporary basis and that, in view of his history of making promises which he had not performed, the plans for them to resume living together in CP's home would not have been implemented. R had at least another ten years of working life and her earning capacity was such that she could meet her reasonable income needs (including the cost of suitable rented accommodation) if she were freed from the burden of debt and also from the necessity to take on additional work while her daughter is under 18. Any provision ordered by the Court should be limited so as to bring about that result.

The Chancery District Judge said at the conclusion of the trial that it was a difficult case, and reserved judgment. In that judgment he found for R on both issues. CP's financial records were incomplete as there were some accounts for which it had not been possible to obtain statements, so the records produced were not conclusive that CP did not have the resources to make the payments. There was oral evidence that immediately after CP's death, R was experiencing difficulty in paying her rent, which had not previously been the case. On the question whether CP and R had been reconciled and intended to resume living together permanently in CP's home, J's evidence was decisive in R's favour. Accordingly R was awarded £150,000 absolutely, out of which to purchase a property for her own use and occupation, the payment to be made (in accordance with H's instructions that her sons' interests in the estate be preserved as far as possible) out of H's entitlement to CP's intestate estate.

This was a claim by R for reasonable financial provision out of the estate of the deceased (CP) who died intestate on 11.10.05, survived by his widow (H) and two sons, aged respectively 24 and 21 at the date of the trial, and leaving estate valued at £219,430. In addition to her entitlement under CP's intestacy, she benefited from CP's occupational pension and from a policy of life assurance which fell into his estate although it appears that it had been intended to be taken out for R's benefit. H was also due to retire shortly and would receive an occupational pension on retirement.