Heirs in UK Law

"Causes of action" in the section means, I think, rights which can be enforced - or liabilities which can beredressed - by legal proceedings in the Queen's Courts, These new survive against the estate of the deceased person. They extend also to rights enforceable by proceedings in the Divorce court, provided that they really are rights and not mere hopes or contingencies. The only thing which takes a case out of the Act is the absence of an enforceable right at the time of death.

Subject to the court's powers under the Act and to fiscal demands, an Englishman still remains at liberty at his death to dispose of his own property in whatever way he pleases… In order to enable the court to interfere with and reform those dispositions it must, in my judgment, be shown not that the deceased acted unreasonably, but that looked at objectively, his … lack of disposition produces an unreasonable result in that it does not make any … provision for the applicant —and that means, in the case of an applicant other than a spouse for that applicant's maintenance."

In an application under the 1975 Act, however, the figure resulting from the section 25 exercise is merely one of the factors to which the court is to "have regard" and the overriding consideration is what is "reasonable" in all the circumstances. It is, however, obviously a very important consideration and one which the statute goes out of its way to bring to the court's attention.

The concept of maintenance is no doubt broad, but the distinction made by the differing paragraphs of section 1(2) shows that it cannot extend to any or every thing which it would be desirable for the claimant to have. It must import provision to meet the everyday expenses of living. The summary of Browne-Wilkinson J in In re Dennis, deceased [1981] 2 All ER 140 at 145–146 is helpful and has often been cited with approval:

From the judgments of this Court in re Coventry to the present day, it should be clear that no gloss has been put upon subsection (d). An adult child is, consequently, in no different position from any other applicant who has to prove his case. If the applicant is of working age, with a job or capable of obtaining a job which would be available, the factors in favour of his claim for financial provision may not be of much weight in the scales.

In the former it is such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive whether or not it is required for his or her maintenance.

Even so I do not think that in a case of this character an appellant can succeed in this court merely by showing (assuming that he can show) that this or that figure is erroneous, or this or that calculation is inaccurate. In what is essentially a jury question the over-all picture is what matters. It is the wood that has to be looked at, and not the individual trees.