Cohabitant awarded life interest
following 1975 Act claim
Ever wondered about succession rights for cohabiting couples?
The judgement for Banfield v Campbell [2018] EWHC 1943 (Ch) was handed down earlier this
week, with the result being that the claimant was awarded a life interest in half of the net
proceeds of sale of the deceased’s property rather than a lump sum.
The claimant, Mr Banfield, brought a claim
against his deceased partner’s estate under
the Inheritance (Provision for Family and
Dependants) Act 1975 on the basis that
her will failed to make reasonable financial
provision for him following her death on a
holiday flight to the Canary Islands in 2015.
Mrs Cambell’s will left the residue of her
estate to James, her son from a previous
relationship, on the condition he reach 25 and
a gift of £5000 to Mr Banfield who in the will
was described as a ‘friend’. Considering the
will was written in the early stages of their
relationship this description was likely apt for
the time.
Mr Banfield brought a claim under section
1(1A) of the 1975 Act as a cohabitant of the
deceased who was living as a spouse, and
also under section 1(1)(e) as a person being
maintained by her immediately before her
death.
There was some dispute over whether Mr
Banfield was entitled to bring a claim under
section 1(1A), with James alleging that he
lived more like a lodger by the time of Mrs
Campbell’s death. The basis for this claim
was that by 2011 the claimant and deceased
were no longer sharing a bed, largely because
Mr Banfield found it more comfortable to live
downstairs due to ongoing health issues. It
was held that this was no reason to conclude
that they were not living together as though
they were married though, and witness
statements suggested that Mrs Campbell had
made it clear that she did not wish to be on
her own. He was able to bring his claim under
this section.
He was also able to bring his claim as a person
being maintained, as immediately before the
deceased’s death he was being maintained
by way of rent-free accommodation and had
been for a number of years. Although the
6
The Society of Will Writers
actual date that they began to cohabit was
also disputed, it was agreed that by 2001 he
had moved in with the deceased.
The judge accepted that reasonable financial
provision had not been made for Mr Banfield
and were sympathetic towards the position
he had been left in especially regarding his
housing needs. As he was not married to the
deceased the judge could only award what
was necessary for his maintenance, as the
maintenance standard is a lower standard of
provision than the surviving spouse standard.
This did not equate to awarding him a capital
sum large enough to allow him to purchase
his own home.
The result was that the judge ordered the
property to be sold and Mr Banfield given a life
interest in half of the net proceeds of sale to
be used towards providing accommodation
for him. The main reason given for this is
that in this case the award of a lump sum
as maintenance was not appropriate as the
deceased had a child from an earlier marriage
to whom she wanted to pass on capital to.
A further reason given is that awarding a lump
sum to the claimant would be depriving the
deceased’s son, whom the deceased indicated
she intended to receive the bulk of her estate
in a letter of wishes. It was suggested that
where a lump sum of 50% or more was sought
it was likely to be more appropriate to award
a life interest to provide housing rather than a
lump sum.
This case highlights the important of keeping
your planning up to date and regularly
reviewing wills as relationships evolve and
change. It also provides an interesting look
into what is considered ‘reasonable provision’
when maintaining cohabitants.
For the full judgement see: http://www.
familylawhub.co.uk/default.aspx?i=ce6772
The Society of Will Writers
7