Re Besterman (Deceased)
A surviving spouse's claim for reasonable provision is not limited to maintenance, and the court should consider what the spouse would have received on divorce.
Facts
Theodore Besterman, a wealthy scholar, left an estate worth about 1.5 million pounds, most of it to Oxford University, leaving his widow a life interest which produced a modest income. She applied for reasonable provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The judge awarded her a lump sum of 238,000 pounds, and she appealed for more.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal increased the award to 378,000 pounds. Oliver LJ said that, for a surviving spouse, reasonable provision is not limited to what is needed for maintenance, but means such provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances for a spouse to receive. The court must have regard to the provision she might reasonably have expected to receive if the marriage had ended in divorce rather than death. The widow was entitled to a sum that would give her security and freedom from financial anxiety for the rest of her life, given the size of the estate and the length of the marriage.
Related cases on cohabitants, family property and family provision
- Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317
- Re Coventry (Deceased) [1980] Ch 461
- Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336, [2020] Fam 129
- Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404
- Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338
- Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557
- Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29, 2013 SC (UKSC) 1
Studying family law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
