header-logo header-logo

24 January 2020
Issue: 7871 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Record claim on husband's estate

The High Court has upheld a widow’s right to bring a claim against her husband’s estate more than 26 years after grant of probate

The High Court has upheld a widow’s right to bring a claim against her husband’s estate more than 26 years after grant of probate

The judgment, handed down this week, Thakare v Bhusate [2020] EWHC 52 (Ch), sets a new landmark in the length of time Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims can be brought after death. The previous record of six years was set in Stock v Brown [1994] 1 FLR 840. Normally, claims for reasonable financial provision must be brought within six months of the grant of probate.

Mr and Mrs Bhusate married in India in 1979 when he was 61, twice previously married with five children, and she was 28 and spoke little English. They lived in London and had one child before he died intestate in 1990. The matrimonial home failed to sell, and Mrs Bhusate continues to live there with her son.

Chief Master Marsh granted Mrs Bhusate permission to bring a claim out of time (nearly 25 years after grant of probate), partly on the basis her acrimonious relationship with her stepchildren had obstructed the sale of the house.

The stepchildren appealed, arguing reasonable financial provision had already been made for Mrs Bhusate at the time of Mr Bhusate’s death, and it was her own ‘fault’ that she lost this entitlement. Dismissing the appeal, however, Mr Edwin Johnson QC concluded it was inappropriate to interfere with the Chief Master’s decision. Moreover, he said the ‘administration of the estate was left in limbo’ due to the stepchildren’s lack of co-operation.

Paul Hewitt, partner at Withers, who acted for Mrs Bhusate, said: ‘Despite the eye-catching amount of time which has elapsed since her husband's death, the facts in Mrs Bhusate's case are very specific.’

Issue: 7871 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll