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 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