Thompson v Raggett & Ors – Applicant Awarded Property Outright

The case of Thompson v Raggett & Ors (Rev 1)[2018] EWHC 688 (Ch) provides an example of the Court sidestepping Lord Hughes’ comments in the case of Ilott v Blue Cross & Ors [2017] UKSC 17.

The decision in the Ilott case deemed that the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is to provide for maintenance to applicants (other than spouses) rather than capital and, as such, when providing for a housing need to do so by limiting the applicant’s ownership of a property to their lifetime (so that the property passes back to the intended beneficiaries when the applicant dies).

The argument had often previously been that a permanent transfer of property would be preferable to house an applicant, so as to give the parties a clean break after hostile litigation.

Thompson v Raggett & Ors

Case outline

In the Raggett case, the applicant, Ms Thompson, was the deceased’s cohabitee and partner, who had been left nothing of his £1.5 million estate due to his mistrust of her children.

The Judge, HHJ Jarman QC, found the Will failed to leave reasonable provision for Ms Thompson and awarded her a property outright and a sum of money with which to redecorate it. In overlooking the defendant’s calls to limit the award to a life interest, the Judge commented that even though the level of antagonism was not to the same degree as other cases, and the parties would still be neighbours, a full capital transfer of the property to Ms Thompson would be preferable, so, amongst other things, she had autonomy to make relevant decisions about her home, such as renovations or raising money.

Given the size of the estate, and that there was still plenty for the beneficiaries to receive, the decision can be understood but the Court seemed to accept with ease a transfer of substantial capital assets permanently away from the deceased’s intended beneficiaries (despite the Supreme Court’s guidance), which may be worrying for beneficiaries in similar disputes.