Rupert Coe successful in Inheritance Act appeal

Rupert Coe recently appeared for the successful respondents in Dean v Groves [2025] 3 WLUK 292 (Miles J) in which the claimant (C) appealed against a decision dismissing his claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) on the basis that it had been reasonable for his late former wife (M) not to provide for him in her will.  The decision is a relatively rare case of a spouse, who has been left nothing in the deceased’s will, receiving nothing by way of provision when claiming under the 1975 Act.

C’s marriage to M was his second marriage and her third. Both had adult children from earlier marriages but no children together. They married in 2007 when the claimant was about 52. The relationship ended in 2020 and the marriage was dissolved in 2021, shortly before M died, aged 60. Her estate consisted mainly of her share in three properties: the matrimonial home in England and a holiday home in Spain which were owned 50/50 with C, and another property held by a company in which M held 66% of the shares and C 34%. M made two wills in 2021, for her English and Spanish property respectively, when she knew that she was dying and that her 14-year marriage to C was over. In both cases she made no provision for C and left the residue to her children and their issue. C brought a claim under the 1975 Act, which was defended by M’s children as beneficiaries of the estate.

Although M and C were divorced, there had been no financial settlement and C brought his claim on the basis that he was not tied to the maintenance standard of provision.  At first instance the circuit judge exercised the power under s.14 of the 1975 Act to treat C as if he had remained married to M until her death.  Nevertheless, he dismissed C’s claim entirely, finding that it was reasonable for M to have excluded C from her will.  The circuit judge found that C had a substantial income, and M’s obligations lay towards her own children rather than C.

C obtained leave to appeal on four grounds from Mr Justice Thompsell, and the appeal was heard in the High Court by Mr Justice Miles on 14 March 2025.  C claimed inter alia that the circuit judge had mis-applied the “divorce cross-check” under s.3(2) of the 1975 Act and had, in effect, treated C as if he was tied to maintenance.  However Miles J dismissed the appeal. There were no grounds for the appeal court to interfere in the judge’s evaluative decision and he had correctly applied the divorce cross-check.  The judgment underlines the difficulty associated with bringing appeals against first instance decisions made under the 1975 Act.  The 1975 Act allows for the Court to make a value judgment based upon a broad range of factors, and such a value judgment should not be disturbed on appeal.

Rupert was instructed by Paul Robinson Solicitors.

 

If you have any queries about the case please contact justin@threestone.law