header-logo header-logo

25 September 2008
Issue: 7338 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Inheritance

Baynes v Hedger and others [2008] EWHC 1587 (Ch), [2008] All ER (D) 175 (Jul)

(i) Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), the court has to decide: (a) whether, looked at objectively, the will failed to make reasonable provision for the claimant’s maintenance in all the circumstances of the case; and (b) if so, to what extent (if at all) should the court exercise its powers under I(PFD)A 1975? The first question is a value judgment; the second is a question of discretion.

(ii) In deciding whether or not two people have lived together in the same household during the whole of the requisite two year period, the court’s attention is not confined to that two-year period, in so far as previous events explain what was happening within that period. Nor, if two people are living in the same household will they necessarily stop doing so merely because they are temporarily physically separated.

(iii) A sum awarded to pay a claimant’s debts will not fall within the concept of “maintenance” unless the payment of those debts enables the claimant to derive a future income which he could not do if the debts remain unpaid, or the debts represent living expenses incurred since the death of the deceased.

(iv) I(PFD)A 1975 requires the claimant to establish that the deceased “was making” a contribution immediately before death, and so the outright gift of a house many years ago cannot constitute maintenance even if the claimant continued to live in it, since the house became the claimant’s asset, to be used however the claimant wished.

Issue: 7338 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll