The size and nature of an estate is a relevant consideration for the Court when making a decision in a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) (section 3 of the 1975 Act). The Court gives a considerable amount of weight to this, and this can be seen in the recent case.
The Law
The Civil Procedure Rules Part 31.17(3) states that:
‘(a) the documents of which disclosure is sought are likely to support the case of the applicant or adversely affect the case of one of the other parties to the proceedings; and
(b) disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim or save costs.’
Background of the case
The Deceased died leaving a Will, which established discretionary trusts for the Claimant, his children, and his remoter issue, but made no capital provision for the Claimant. The Claimant brought a claim against the estate for provision under the 1975 Act:
(1) arguing that by applying a ‘divorce analogy’, a spouse should not be in a worse position following the death of his/her spouse than he/she would have been in if the marriage had ended in divorce; and
(2) claiming that she was entitled to outright capital provision from the Deceased’s estate.
In 2023, both the trustees of the discretionary trust and the solicitor for the Deceased’s children and remoter issue applied for third-party disclosure against the Respondent, in which the Deceased’s estate held 50% of the shares, with the other 50% held by a relative of the Deceased and the Claimant. The Respondent was asked to provide an accurate and up-to-date valuation of the shares, which is critical for the Court’s assessment under the 1975 Act.
The Respondent opposed the applications on the basis that:
(1) the applications sought disclosure of highly sensitive and confidential information, and they owed confidentiality duties to third parties; and
(2) the disclosure is intrusive and not justified if the real purpose is to realise the value of the shares rather than to undertake the kind of valuation necessary for this claim.
The Deceased’s estate net value was an eight-figure sum, with approximately 75% represented by shares of the Respondent. The valuation relied upon was from April 2020 and was argued by the Applicants to be unreliable due to significant global and business changes. The Deceased’s estate had received no income from the Respondent since his death.
Decision
The Court granted the disclosure applications, stating that:
- The principal purpose of non-party disclosure was to arrive at a proper computation of the value of the Deceased’s estate. Without that proper computation, the Court would not be able to fulfil its duty in accordance with the 1975 Act;
- The Court is used to having sensitive information and dealing with it. It would be wrong to allow the confidentiality issue to interrupt the Court’s statutory requirement to carry out a computational enquiry; and
- The Court could impose a privacy regime (including redaction and anonymisation) to address the confidentiality concerns.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us