Widow wins half of her late husband’s £1 million estate despite his Will completely excluding herself and her daughters

Are you looking for the right people to help answer your questions?

Are you looking for the right people to help answer your questions? Whether you have an inquiry about our products, services or general operations, we want to let you know that we are here and ready to help! Just send us a quick message and we'll be sure to put you in touch with the right team member who can provide answers. We look forward to hearing from you soon!

Clear Solutions to Your Legal Woes - Buckles Solicitors

Take a look at the comprehensive range of legal services offered here at Buckles Solicitors. Should you require any assistance, please don't hesitate to reach out.

A recent case of a widow winning half of her late husband’s £1 million estate despite his Will completely excluding herself and her daughters, highlights the importance that the Court places on there being ‘reasonable provision’ made for dependants in a Will.

Karnail Singh died in 2021, following 66 years of marriage to Harbans Kaur, with the union producing seven children, one of whom sadly predeceased their parents.

Singh wrote a Will in 2005, in which he made the decision to provide “solely down the male line”, leaving his entire estate to his and Kaur’s two sons, and making no provision at all for his wife and four daughters.

Kaur, who is registered disabled and has an income consisting only of state benefits, decided to claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, seeking reasonable financial provision on the grounds that she was financially dependant on her husband, who prior to his death, had met all family outgoings.

When the claim came to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Justice Peel heard that Kaur was “a wife who made a full and equal contribution to the marriage”, and who had been committed to working in the family’s former clothing business, despite not receiving a salary or having any direct stake in it.

During his summing up, Peel J described the case as “the clearest possible case entitling me to conclude that reasonable provision has not been made for the claimant”, adding: “It is hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached.”

He highlighted the “divorce cross-check” which is relevant in cases where surviving spouses and civil partners are disputing reasonable financial provision. This assesses how much money the claimant would have been awarded if the marriage had ended in divorce as opposed to death and suggests that surviving spouses shouldn’t be worse off as a widow. As a result, the Court felt it appropriate to award 50% of the net value of the estate to Kaur.

This ruling highlights that individuals cannot be arbitrarily excluded from Wills, especially spouses who have made significant contributions over a long period. The Court made its decision in the spirit of fairness and was explicit on this issue. In this case, leaving nothing to a spouse and other dependants, who also had a claim on the estate, was not justified by the fact that Mr Singh wanted to leave his inheritance to his male line.

Making a claim through the Inheritance Act 1975 is not always this straightforward however, and it is crucial to understand your rights as a dependant to fully gauge whether you have a strong case for challenging the provisions made in a loved one’s Will.

The Inheritance Act 1975

There are restrictions on the freedom you have to decide who gets what from your estate in your will. The Inheritance Act permits a spouse and certain other eligible claimants, such as those who were financially dependant on the deceased, to bring a claim against the deceased’s estate in the event that a Will or an intestacy fails to provide for them reasonably.

Those eligible to bring a claim include:

  • A spouse or civil partner
  • Children (including grown-up children)
  • A former spouse or civil partner who had not since entered into a new marriage or civil partnership
  • A partner who had been cohabiting with the deceased for at least two years as if they were husband and wife or civil partners
  • Someone who the deceased had treated as their child (eg, foster children and step-children)
  • Someone who was being fully or partly maintained or cared for by the deceased

The most significant question that needs to be addressed in all Inheritance Act claims is “has the disposition of the deceased’s estate made reasonable financial provision for the claimant?”

There are two standards of ‘provision’ by which ‘reasonable financial provision’ is measured:

  • If the claimant is the spouse or civil partner of the deceased, the provision required is what is reasonable for the claimant to receive (“the reasonableness standard“); and
  • If the claimant is any other person, the financial provision is that which it would be reasonable for the claimant to receive for their ongoing maintenance, or what is reasonable for the claimant to live on. (“the maintenance standard“).

Has Reasonable Financial Provision Been Made?

The question of whether the Will (or the intestacy) has failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant is an objective one and will rely largely on financial evidence. The burden will always be on the claimant to establish that reasonable financial provision has not been made.

Section 3 of the Inheritance Act lists all the factors that the court must consider when making a ruling and the size of any resulting award. These factors include:

  • the financial resources and financial needs which the claimant has or is likely to have in future;
  • the financial resources and financial needs which any beneficiary of the estate has or is likely to have in future;
  • any obligations or responsibilities which the deceased had towards any claimant or beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
  • the size and nature of the net estate of the deceased;
  • any physical or mental condition of any claimant or any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased; and
  • any other matter, including the conduct of the claimant or any other person.

It should be noted that it has not yet been tested in court whether a provision in a pre-nuptial agreement barring a claim under the Inheritance Act is effective and precludes a spouse from actually bringing a claim. However, Court orders dissolving the potential claimant’s former marriage/civil partnership with the deceased can prevent them from making an Inheritance Act claim at a later date.

Regardless, the High Court’s ruling in the case of Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors sends a very clear message to those making hasty or unreasonable decisions when drafting a Will. It also serves as a call to action to anyone who feels they may have not been provided for reasonably.

If you have any queries or concerns regarding the contents of a loved one’s Will, or need support drafting or altering a Will to safeguard the wellbeing of your dependants, please contact our Contentious Probate team for a confidential consultation.

Recent News

Ready to speak to a specialist?

Speak to any one of our lawyers from across Europe about your needs and specific requirements.