Claimant Awarded Life Interest In Property Despite Short Term Cohabitation

The recent case of Bullock v Denton & Willoughby saw a Claimant awarded a value representing a life interest in a Deceased’s property despite only having cohabited with the Deceased for only four years (on and off) and against evidence suggesting the relationship was not as a married couple.

Under the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants Act) 1975, anyone other than a spouse or civil partner is entitled to an award representing their maintenance only as opposed to the wider and all-encompassing reasonable provision; providing they still meet the criteria set out in Section 1 of the Act allowing them to bring a claim.

The Claimant, in this case, pursued her claim pursuant to Section 1(e) and 1A of the Act, as someone financially dependent on the Deceased and as cohabitee living in the same household as the Deceased for at least two years immediately prior to their death and as if they were a married couple. The Claimant was, therefore, entitled to bring a claim against the estate for a provision of maintenance only. At a first glance the Claimant’s award representing a life interest in the Deceased’s estate, therefore, appears to be generous and when considering evidence before the Court, not what the Deceased intended.

Bullock v Denton & Willoughby

Summary of facts

The Claimant and the Deceased had known each other for a number of years before becoming romantically involved. Initially, each of them were in separate marriages and it was not until those marriages ended did a romantic relationship evolve. During the relationship, the Claimant had moved in with the Deceased but cohabitation was broken throughout the relationship as the Claimant later moved out and maintained her own property, although provided for by the Deceased to an extent, it was separate from the Deceased’s own property.

The evidence put forward on behalf of the Deceased further suggested that the relationship between them was not as if they were a married couple, which would prevent the Claimant from bringing a claim pursuant to Section 1A, as a cohabitee. It was noted that the Deceased’s Will made no provision for the Claimant and the attendance notes in relation to the making of the Will confirmed the Deceased held himself out as single which was during the time of the alleged relationship and period of cohabitation. Friends of the Deceased also gave evidence stating that at no point did the Deceased refer to the Claimant as his partner and instead she was always referred to as a housekeeper.

The Claimant, on the other hand, provided evidence that suggested she and the Deceased were living together as if they were a married couple. Witnesses in support of the Claimant were somewhat removed from the relationship, such as the neighbours and the Claimant’s mother, and they were able to confirm the frequency and length of cohabitation between them. There were also greeting cards sent to and from the couple together and expert evidence confirmed this was in the Deceased’s handwriting. The evidence in support of the relationship was therefore strong for and against.

The Judge in this instance felt the only people who could really give evidence as to the relationship was the Claimant and Deceased but ultimately, as it was accepted the Claimant was maintained by the Deceased and able to bring her claim pursuant to Section 1(e) of the Act, the matter of cohabitation was not vital.

The Award

Having established the Claimant was able to bring a claim under Section 1 of the Act, the Judge moved on to consider the factors set out in Section 3 as to what award would be appropriate in the circumstances.

The Claimant explained how if it was not for the Deceased’s untimely death then she would have remained in accommodation with him for the remainder of her life. The Judge felt an outright award, so the Claimant could purchase a house, would extend beyond a reasonable maintenance provision in this instance and therefore granted the award as a life interest. The Claimant was awarded the following:

• £140,000 on Trust to purchase a property which on death would revert to the Deceased’s estate;
• £6,000 to cover removal costs and the legal expense relating to the Trust;
• £10,000 to purchase a new car as something the Deceased had promised the Claimant during his life;
• £24,000 as a capitalised amount of additional income in accordance with the Duxbury Table, of which the Judge specifically commented was granted as an alternative to being able to award a sum to cover the Claimant’s debts;
• £5,000 towards the replacement of various white goods; and
• £25,000 in light of the Claimant’s Solicitor’s success fee as it was noted the real-life position would otherwise prevent the Claimant from receiving a reasonable award as much would have been absorbed by the success fee.

The Claimant’s reasonable maintenance provision, in this case, was therefore valued at over £200,000 which as set out initially, appears to be generous. When considering the facts, however, it appears it would be reasonable for the Claimant to have received a life interest in a property given that accommodation would have otherwise been secured if the Deceased remained alive. The remaining awards in the context were also minor and only formed the amounts required to assist the Claimant until reaching retirement age.

This case further confirms that in cases where only a maintenance provision can be awarded, the award will not be capped but instead should reflect the true maintenance needs of a claimant.