Shapton v Seviour – A Shift Towards A Rise In Hopeless Inheritance Act Claims?

The recent case of Shapton v Seviour has highlighted that claims being pursued in accordance with the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (Act), are being made with little regard to the criteria set out by that Act.

Shapton v Seviour – Case overview

Shapton v Seviour was a case which reached trial and was dismissed by Deputy Master Lloyd on the grounds of being ‘absolutely hopeless’, and on the grounds of costs, as one which ‘never stood a reasonable prospect of success’. Upon providing judgment, the Court referred to the following factors:

1. The size of the estate – it was a very small estate;
2. The fact that the Claimant with her husband had a high income and enjoyed a comfortable life; and
3. The Defendant was disabled with a terminal illness needing ‘every penny to live out her remaining years in dignity and comfort’.

The case has raised some eyebrows amongst those practitioners who specialise in these claims. The concerns go to the heart of the advice, which is being provided and the foundations of that advice. As lawyers evaluate such facts, consideration should always be given to the value of the estate and the circumstances of all the parties.

Usually, cases with similar facts to Shapton v Seviour tend to settle and realistically should never see the inside of a Courtroom. What Shapton v Seviour makes abundantly clear is that claims with similar facts to that case should not really be made. We know from the facts that the Defendant offered to drop hands, but was unable to pay to the Claimant the significant sums being claimed. The estate was worth in the region of £268,000 and 80% of that sum was tied up in the matrimonial home.

Both the Defendant and the deceased had children from their previous relationships. The deceased had made the decision to provide for his wife of 17 years due to the estate being modest and all of the children were adults ‘making their own way in life and standing on their own two feet’.

The Claimant was a 32-year-old woman with a very good income, although she had some debts, which she had accumulated over the years. By contrast, the Defendant had lost her husband to brain cancer in 2016 and was then diagnosed with motor neurone disease. She no longer could depend on her husband and being unable to work, she was reliant on the state. Any savings the Defendant had amassed were used to modify her home.

Comment

Even though it was crystal clear that the Defendant was in need and the Claimant’s claim lacked merit, the Claimant was unable to walk away, which we can only assume due to her pride. When considering why such claims are made, we refer to the ever famous (or infamous) decision of Illott v Mitson, where an adult child received a sum from her late mother’s estate. This has now provided reliable authority to cite that adult children can bring claims under the Act.

Ultimately, a Defendant should not be pressurised into having to settle a claim, that absolutely has no prospects of success. If you are in any doubt as to whether you meet the criteria to pursue a claim under the Act or a claim has been made against you, it is important to obtain legal advice.