Clare Kelly provides a round-up of recent contentious probate case law
- Ames v Jones provides a reminder that claims by adult children under the Inheritance Act will not be successful where they depend on a lifestyle choice.
- Lloyd v Jones confirms that dementia alone (even where this is accompanied by bizarre delusions) will not mean a will is invalid on the grounds of capacity.
- Guney v Kingsley Napley highlights the emotional toll of contentious probate disputes.
The hopes of adult children in claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), given a boost by Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797, [2016] 1 All ER 932, have been brought back down to earth by the decision in Ames v Jones & Ors [2016] EW Misc B67 (CC), where provision was denied because the claimant’s financial circumstances were found to be a lifestyle choice.
The case concerned an I(PFD)A 1975 claim by an adult child (Danielle) for provision from her late father’s estate. Her parents divorced when
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
