The High Court in Northern Ireland has provided a rare judgment in relation to claims made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) (NI) Order 1979 (‘the 1979 Order’).

 

The plaintiff in this case was the eldest son of the deceased Testator. The plaintiff had been left out of his father’s Will with the entire estate going to the deceased’s wife. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the Will. The plaintiff therefore now sought reasonable financial provision from his father’s estate which had been valued at close to £3m.

The plaintiff argued that he had been heavily involved in the running of his father’s business in his teenage years and that he was a “loyal and loving son”, who deserved an equitable share in the business. He had also argued that he had encountered financial difficulties recently and was therefore entitled to maintenance in the form of financial provision from his father’s estate.

 

However, the defence argued that the plaintiff’s relationship with his father was “very fractured” and that the deceased had discussed with his wife that the plaintiff should get nothing. The deceased’s wife was able to point to various examples which demonstrated a severe breakdown in relationship between father and son.

In considering the evidence before him, the judge looked at the numerous properties that were owned by the plaintiff. He also asserted that whilst the plaintiff had run into some financial trouble recently, he was still fit and able to work and had posted a £10,000 cash security for a high-profile bail application the previous year. The judge held that, in the case of an adult claimant, well capable of living independently, something more than the qualifying relationship is needed to found a claim.  In some cases that additional something could be a ‘moral claim’ but the court found that there was no such claim established in this this case.

 

It was held that the plaintiff had not been maintained by his father prior to his death as their relationship was ‘non-existent for years’, that his behaviour before and after the death of his father was described as “appalling” and that his moral claim for any sort of financial provision from his father’s estate was “utterly bereft of merit.”

 

This judgment serves as a keen reminder of the principle of “testamentary freedom” and that for a claim under the 1979 Order to succeed, there must be sufficient justification. It should therefore dissuade would-be plaintiffs from making spurious or speculative claims, particularly where they are unable to point to evidence that they were being substantially maintained by the deceased prior to death.

 

For legal guidance and advice regarding Will’s or estate planning, please contact Fiona Kirkpatrick in our Private Client team for more information.

While great care has been taken in the preparation of the content of this article, it does not purport to be a comprehensive statement of the relevant law and full professional advice should be taken before any action is taken in reliance on any item covered.