Claims by spouses under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the 1975 Act’) often stand good prospects of success. Such a claim allows spouses and other classes of applicants to apply for reasonable financial provision from the estate.
So for example, where the matrimonial home was held in the sole name of the deceased husband, the surviving wife would typically have a good claim depending on her own financial circumstances.
But in Wooldridge v Wooldridge [2016], a 1975 Act claim by the surviving spouse failed outright due to her own financial position and doubts as to what she needed.
Wooldridge v Wooldridge – Case details
Ian Wooldridge made his money in the construction industry and was a very successful businessman. He died in a helicopter crash in October 2010 leaving behind his widow, Thandi Wooldridge and two children, Charlie (22, from a previous relationship) and Rhett (6).
Ian and Thandi were together for 15 years and married for the last 11 years. Ian’s estate comprised the matrimonial home held in his name, worth £4 million to £4.25 million, and life insurance policies of £1.6 million. Leaving aside those assets, the net estate was worth approximately £6.8 million.
Ian’s homemade Will duly left Thandi the matrimonial home and some of the life policies. The Will also directed Ian’s company to pay Thandi £75,000 per annum in the event of his death. However, that particular gift failed because it was not within Ian’s power to oblige the company to make this payment to Thandi. His shares in the construction company went to Charlie and Rhett.
Annual expenditure
Thandi commenced her 1975 Act claim and asserted she needed £372,000 a year to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed with Ian or, put another way, £3.75 million.
The fundamental difficulty for Thandi was that she already owned £10.5 million of assets in her own name following a successful career in advertising. Not only that, she also received almost £2 million by way of compensation for the crash that killed Ian (Charlie received £315,000 and Rhett £200,000).
The list of annual expenditure put forward on behalf of Thandi was undoubtedly impressive and included:
- £21,500 for meals, theatre, polo events;
- £65,000 for holidays;
- £10,000 for gifts;
- £15,000 for entertaining and parties;
- £58,000 for transport;
- £155,000 for a new Bentley to supplement a £75,000 Range Rover
Unsurprisingly, especially in light of her own assets, the claim was defended by Charlie on the basis she was quite simply too wealthy to require further provision.
Court proceedings
The Court questioned whether £372,000 a year represented what Thandi needed or just wanted. This was a lifestyle she certainly desired but had in fact not enjoyed, and the Court found that she had put forward a wish list rather than a record of what had gone before.
It also noted Thandi was quite capable of returning to work if necessary and that she was clearly a successful businesswoman in her own right. Furthermore, the Court was reluctant to do anything that would have a detrimental lasting effect on the family companies previously run by Ian for the benefit of his children.
The claim was therefore dismissed because Thandi could not prove Ian’s Will did not meet her needs for reasonable financial provision, with the Judge concluding that ‘Thandi has enough’.
Surprising claim
It will surprise many that Thandi even commenced this claim in light of her own financial position. In all 1975 Act claims, the financial status of the claimant is at the heart of the matter. If Thandi had no significant assets of her own, it is quite possible her claim would have succeeded to some extent, but perhaps not to the extent that she was hoping because she could not demonstrate that the sort of spending she required going forward was matched by that when Ian was alive.
While it is unusual to see a claim of this size, this case still demonstrates that not all 1975 Act claims by spouses are automatically destined to succeed. The financial position of the other beneficiaries must be considered along with the other factors which a court must carefully consider.
It is also surprising that Ian, whose estate was worth in excess of £10m and which comprised personal and business assets, would use a homemade will. This is often quite risky and his reasons for doing so are unclear, but instructing an experienced solicitor would have quite possibly avoided some of the costs incurred in the litigation. The payment of £75,000 per year to Thandi in Ian’s will was deemed unenforceable – had Ian obtained experienced legal advice so that Thandi did receive what he intended, some of the matters raised in this litigation may have been avoided altogether.
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team, specialising in inheritance dispute claims.
If you have any questions in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Kevin or another member of our expert team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.