Hulya Kars v Lewis John Brown & Ors [2026] EWHC 31 (Fam)
High Court (Family Division), 9 January 2026 Judge: DHCJ Naomi Davey
Background of the case
The claimant is the former spouse of the Deceased, Mr Jon Lamb. Mr Lamb died intestate on 30 December 2021. The pair were married until 13 May 2019 when the decree absolute was pronounced. At the time of Mr Lamb’s death, matrimonial finance proceedings were still ongoing and the Claimant had not remarried.
The Defendants in the 1975 Act proceedings were the Deceased’s three son’s and adopted daughter’s estate, all of whom were beneficiaries to Mr Lamb’s estate, which was valued at approximately £331,122 and included a property registered in Mr Lamb’s name.
The ongoing matrimonial proceedings consisted of possession proceedings in relation to a property, brought by the Claimant in August 2023. These proceedings were stayed in March 2025 to allow for a decision to be determined in the 1975 Act Claim.
The Claimant was seeking reasonable financial provision from her former husband’s estate via the 1975 Act claim either by way of a lump sum payment of £50,000 or alternatively by way of transfer of the property if it forms part of the Estate.
Key legal issues
- Whether a former spouse can claim under the 1975 Act despite intestacy rules excluding them.
- Whether the claimant had a beneficial interest in property jointly acquired during the marriage.
- What constitutes “reasonable financial provision” for a former spouse.
Court’s findings
- Former spouses can succeed under the 1975 Act
The court confirmed that a former spouse is eligible to claim if they have not remarried and if the divorce order does not bar future claims.
- Property ownership was central
The court held that the disputed property was owned:
- 50% by Ms Kars, and
- 50% by the estate, reflecting the parties’ shared intentions at the time of purchase.
This significantly increased the value of her claim.
- Reasonable financial provision was awarded
The court accepted that the Claimant required provision from the estate and granted her claim. She was awarded a 50% beneficial ownership of the property and the Order also transferred the remaining 50% beneficial interest owned by the Estate to the Claimant to cover her housing needs. The Court did not award any additional lump sum.
Why this case matters
- It is now a leading authority for former spouses making inheritance claims.
- It confirms that intestacy rules do not prevent a former spouse from succeeding under the 1975 Act.
- It highlights the importance of beneficial interests in property when assessing provision.
- It shows the court’s willingness to examine shared intentions and equitable interests in property.
How can we help?
Kirria Hearn is a Trainee Solicitor in our expert Dispute Resolution Team.
For more information regarding the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Kirria or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.
If this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.