Re Callaghan
An adult stepson who had been treated by the deceased as a child of the family could claim reasonable provision from the estate, though the deceased was not his parent.
Facts
The deceased had lived with the claimant's mother, and later married her, when the claimant was a teenager, and treated him as his own son. After the mother's death, the claimant, by then an adult with his own family, cared for the deceased during his last illness. The deceased died intestate, and his estate passed to his siblings under the intestacy rules. The claimant applied for reasonable provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Legal principle
Booth J held that the claimant was a person who had been treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to a marriage to which the deceased was a party, within section 1(1)(d) of the Act, and that the deceased had recognised his position as such throughout their relationship. The intestacy rules did not make reasonable provision for him, in the light of the close relationship, the help he had given, and his modest means. He was awarded a lump sum. The case shows that the category of child of the family can include adults.
Related cases on family provision, forfeiture and other claims against estates
- Re Basham (Deceased) [1986] 1 WLR 1498
- Re Besterman (Deceased) [1984] Ch 458
- Re Coventry (Deceased) [1980] Ch 461
- Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336, [2020] Fam 129
- Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, [2018] AC 545
Studying wills, succession and probate? 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.
