Dependants who have not been adequately provided for in a deceased person's will may be able to make a claim for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Recently, the High Court considered such a claim by the ex-wife of a man who had died before the financial proceedings following their divorce had been concluded.

The couple had married in 2000. The wife had petitioned for divorce in January 2019 and the decree absolute had been pronounced four months later. Matrimonial financial proceedings had been ongoing when the husband died in December 2021.

The wife brought a claim for reasonable financial provision from his estate under the Act. Her claim was contested by two of the husband's sons. She had also brought possession proceedings in relation to a property which was in her name: she claimed that she was the beneficial owner, while the sons contended that the husband had been the beneficial owner. Those proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings under the Act.

The Court considered it necessary to determine the question of beneficial ownership of the property, given that it was a large proportion of the value of the estate. The wife claimed that it was a gift from the husband, while the sons gave evidence that he had intended to retain full beneficial ownership. The Court found that the husband had contributed more than 85 per cent of the purchase price. Taking into account evidence of the husband's and wife's conduct, including that the husband had lived at the property while it had never been the wife's primary residence, the Court concluded that they shared the beneficial ownership.

There was no dispute that, as a former spouse who had not remarried, the wife was eligible to bring a claim under the Act. The Court noted that she was earning about £1,000 per month as a waitress. She was living with her brother and had no alternative accommodation, had no savings or investments and had debts of £61,000.

The husband having died intestate, his estate would be divided equally between his four children under the laws of intestacy, while the wife, as a former spouse, would receive nothing. She had been financially dependent on him for at least the first half of the marriage and had lost the opportunity to obtain a financial order or settlement following the divorce. She was experiencing financial hardship, in particular insecurity of housing.

The Court decided that the appropriate way to secure her housing needs was to order the remaining share of the property to be transferred to her from the estate. Given the relatively small size of the estate and the fact that she would be able to support herself once her housing needs were met, the Court did not consider it appropriate to make any additional provision.