Re the Estate of B (Deceased)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1999 |
| Date | 22 January 1999 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Before Mr Justice Jonathan Parker
Intestacy - provision for family and dependants - payments to deceased indirectly benefiting mother - not for 'reasonable needs' of mother
Where the Court of Protection made monetary contributions on a patient's behalf to the provision of accommodation and to the running of a household, those payments could not properly be characterised as a contribution towards the "reasonable needs" of the patient's mother for the purposes of section 1(1)(e) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, notwithstanding that the payments indirectly benefited the mother.
Mr Justice Jonathan Parker so held in the Chancery Division on a summons issued under Order 14A of the Rules of the Supreme Court by PR. Further, his Lordship allowed an appeal by PR against an order of Master Bragge's granting leave to IB to commence proceedings out of time under the 1975 Act for reasonable provision to made for her out of the estate of her deceased daughter, B.
Mr William Henderson for PR; Mr John Ross Martyn for IB.
MR JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER said that B was born on April 10, 1979. Due to the negligence of the medical staff in attempting a forceps delivery, she suffered serve damage at birth, both to her brain and her spine.
B's father, PR, effectively left the scene when she was eight months old, however her mother, IB, continued to care for her devotedly. In due course an action was brought on behalf of B against the area health authority and in May 1986 a final award of damages was made in the sum of £250,000.
In July 1985, a bungalow was purchased for the joint occupation of B and IB.
B paid 75 per cent of the purchase price pursuant to a direction from the Court of Protection and IB paid the balance.
On B's death, her 75 per cent beneficial share in the property vested in her estate on a resulting trust and passed on her intestacy to IB and PR in equal shares.
On March 6, 1997 IB issued her application for leave to commence proceedings for reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act, leave being granted by Master Bragge on February 10, 1998.
Section 1 of the 1975 Act contained provisions as to who could make an application under the Act. Section 1(1) listed the five categories of persons including
"(e) any person (not being a person included in the foregoing paragraphs of his subsection) who immediately before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bouette v Rose
...that the case fell outside the court’s jurisdiction under the 1975 Act, and the appeal would be allowed. Decision of Jonathan Parker J [1999] 2 FCR 145 Cases referred to in judgmentsBeaumont (decd), Re, Martin v Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd [1980] Ch 444, [1980] 1 All ER 266, [1979] 3 WLR 818.......
-
B v UK (hearing in private)(app no 36337/97)
...contact: restricting applications) [1998] 1 FLR 749 b See Re R (Court of Appeal: order against identification) [1999] 3 FCR 213, [1999] 2 FCR 145 c Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so far as material, is set out at p 104f–104g, European Convention on Human Rights) that ......
-
Suriya Begum v Shakila Ahmed (Personal representative of Mohammed Yousaf Khan, deceased)
...(unreported) Court of Appeal Transcript 1 June 1986; Perry v Horlick (unreported) Court of Appeal Transcript 18 November 1987; re B [1999] Ch 206; [2000] Ch 662; McNulty v McNulty [2002] WTLR 737; Adams v Schofield [2004] WTLR 1049; Berger v Berger [2014] WTLR 35; Cowan v Foreman [2019] E......