Re Jennings (Deceased)
In a claim by an adult son for reasonable provision, the obligations and responsibilities of the deceased must be those existing at the death, not those he failed to discharge in the son's childhood long ago.
Facts
Mr Jennings left his estate to charities and others, and nothing to his son, whom he had not supported as a child after leaving the son's mother. The son, in his fifties, was a successful businessman with his own home and a comfortable income. He claimed reasonable provision from the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The judge awarded him 40,000 pounds, relying on the father's failure to support him as a child.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the beneficiaries and dismissed the claim. Nourse LJ said that the reference in section 3 of the Act to any obligations and responsibilities which the deceased had towards the applicant referred to obligations existing immediately before the death, and not to obligations which the deceased had failed to discharge many years earlier. The son was well provided for, and the will did not fail to make reasonable provision for his maintenance.
Related cases on cohabitants, family property and family provision
- Re Besterman (Deceased) [1984] Ch 458
- 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
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.
