Inheritance disputes between family members can be fraught and complex, but when the stakes are in the millions, the court’s decision can set the tone for future cases. In Thirsk v Thirsk [2026] EWHC 1501 (Ch), Mr Justice Cusworth tackled exactly this, deciding how much a widow should receive from her late husband’s estate. Here’s what happened, what was argued and how the judge reached his decision.
1. The background: farming fortune and family tensions
Henry Stamford Thirsk died in 2022, leaving behind an estate worth over £26 million, amassed through decades of property development and farming in Yorkshire. His widow, Sarah Jane, had been his partner since 2003 and married him in 2021. While Henry had one son from a previous relationship, Sarah Jane had no children with Henry.
Henry’s will gave Sarah Jane:
- A lifelong right to live at Glebe Farm (their matrimonial home) – but only if she did not cohabit or remarry;
- Two luxury cars and a gun; and
- A pecuniary legacy of £5 million (with £1.75m already paid before the trial, and £3.25m plus interest outstanding).
The residue of the estate went to Henry’s son.
Sarah Jane claimed this was not “reasonable financial provision” for her under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act), given the lavish lifestyle she and Henry had shared for nearly twenty years.
2. What’s “reasonable financial provision”? The court’s approach
The key question: Was the will fair, and if not, what would be?
Under the 1975 Act, a surviving spouse gets “such financial provision as it would be reasonable for a husband or wife to receive, whether or not that provision is required for maintenance”. The judge used both the law as written, and the principles from recent divorce and inheritance cases, to answer these questions.
Factors considered:
- Length of relationship: Though the marriage lasted only a year, cohabitation was nearly two decades, which the court considered equivalent to a marital partnership.
- Lifestyle and needs: Sarah Jane claimed annual spending in excess of £480,000, including huge sums for shooting, holidays, motoring and private planes. The judge reviewed credit card statements, cash withdrawals and oral evidence about her lifestyle.
- Assets and intentions: Did Henry intend for Sarah Jane to share in the whole fortune, or mainly provide for his son? Evidence showed he wanted his son to inherit the bulk of the farm and business, and that, even in the marriage, Sarah Jane’s role was not as a co-owner but a beneficiary of his generosity.
3. Divorce cross-check: what would she get if they had divorced?
Courts often use a “divorce cross-check”, comparing what the surviving spouse might have received if the marriage ended in divorce instead of death. Here, the court analysed:
- Matrimonial vs non-matrimonial property: Assets a spouse brings into a marriage may stay “non-matrimonial” unless they are truly shared. Henry’s estate largely came from his own family and business, and evidence showed no intention to share them as a partnership.
- Sharing principle: Only some of the assets were “matrimonialised” i.e., treated as shared. The court applied modern case law, concluding that between half and two-thirds of the assets acquired during the relationship had become “matrimonial”, but not all.
Driven by these factors, the judge calculated that a hypothetical divorce would have entitled Sarah Jane to a maximum share ranging from £5.1m to £6.8m, not the tens of millions she argued for.
4. Needs vs lifestyle: what did the widow really require?
The judge noted that “needs” can mean different things for different claimants. While the marital standard of living is a starting point, it is not an entitlement for life. For Sarah Jane, the budget was “overstated”: private jets and designer clothes could not be considered essential.
After reviewing the evidence, the judge set a fair annual budget at £275,000, still generous, but supported by the lifestyle actually lived during the later years of the relationship.
Capitalising this for 30 years (the judge allowed for a longer period than in a divorce, given the nature of an inheritance claim), the lump sum needed was about £6.5m, plus a housing fund of £1.4m.
5. The outcome: more than the Will, less than equality
The ultimate order replaced Henry’s original will. Sarah Jane was awarded:
- Outright ownership of Glebe Farm (worth about £1.4m);
- The £5 million legacy, plus accrued interest of over £500,000’; and
- The luxury cars and other specific personal items.
This brings her total to around £8.5 million, comfortably covering the lifestyle she had with Henry, but well short of the £16 million she had claimed.
A blueprint for big estate inheritance claims
Thirsk v Thirsk is essential reading for lawyers and families alike. It shows:
- Courts will look at the real relationship, not just the marriage certificate;
- Claimants must prove both their needs and the actual sharing of assets; and
- Testamentary intention matters, but can be overridden if fairness demands it.
The ruling gives practical guidance on assessing provision for spouses in high-value estates, drawing the line between generosity and entitlement.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is an Associate in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us