In SH v NH, the Court ruled that the claimant, who had been cut out of her late father’s Will, was entitled to reasonable financial provision from his estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. She suffered from a debilitating mental illness and the award is intended to meet her current financial needs and support her recovery process.
The claimant’s father had died in 2016, leaving an estate valued in excess of £550,000. In his Will, the claimant’s elderly mother (first defendant), who lived in a care home, was named the sole beneficiary of the estate. The claimant’s mother had extensive health problems and was concerned about being able to continue funding her care. The claimant’s only sibling (second defendant) was financially independent.
Due to her illness, the claimant depended on state benefits and her partner’s income and was unable to support herself and her two children. A psychiatrist had stated that she was likely to need regular psychotherapy for a period of up to three years, at which point she might be able to return to work.
The claimant sought provision in order to move out of a rented flat, where she said that she had been subject to persistent low-level harassment from the landlord and his agents, and buy a new house. She also sought monies to cover her continuing therapy, as well as to purchase a car and white goods. Further, the claimant sought an income fund to help cover her living expenses and also a sum for the discharge of her legal costs (her solicitors were working under a conditional fee agreement and she was liable for a success fee of £48,175).
The Court upheld the claim for reasonable financial provision to be made from the estate of the claimant’s late father and that the subsequent award should be calculated in order to meet her current financial needs. On that basis, a total award of £138,918 was made, consisting of the following elements:
- £17,000 for the ongoing psychiatric therapy costs;
- £48,168 to cover three years’ income shortfall;
- an additional £32,000 to cover the loss of universal credit entitlement which would result from the award;
- £15,000 to purchase a car and white goods;
- £10,000 to find more suitable accommodation;
- £16,750 which the Court felt was a reasonable contribution towards the success fee of £48,175 under the conditional fee agreement; the Court took the (unusual) view it would not be fair on the claimant to ignore completely her liability to her solicitors.
The Court held that awarding the claimant an additional sum for the cost of a new property would be wrong in principle, primarily because funds should be left available to the claimant’s mother so that she could continue to meet her care home costs for the rest of her life. It was also considered that the claimant’s main priority was to recover from her illness rather than to secure new housing and that the nature of the award should reflect that fact.
SH v NH is an interesting case, both as an example of an award for a disabled child and also because it is very unusual in allowing solicitors costs to be included as part of the award.
Usually (and certainly in personal injury cases), the fact that a claimant is on a Conditional Fee Agreement and must pay their solicitors the success fee if they win is just an unfortunate consequence of taking legal action. It used to be that the losing defendant had to pay the success fee, however the insurance lobby managed to convince the government that this wasn’t fair and so instead the burden fell on the claimant to pay out of damages awarded. It is our understanding that the costs element is under appeal.
