Re Watson (Deceased)
A woman who lived with the deceased for many years in a relationship without a sexual element could still be living as his wife for the purposes of a claim by a cohabitant under the 1975 Act.
Facts
The claimant and the deceased had known each other since their youth, and after his retirement she moved into his house, where they lived together for many years until his death. They did not have a sexual relationship, but shared household expenses and their lives in other respects. The deceased died intestate. The claimant applied for reasonable provision as a person who had been living in the same household as the deceased as his wife, under section 1(1A) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Legal principle
Neuberger J held that the claimant was entitled to apply. He said that the court must ask whether, in the opinion of a reasonable person with normal perceptions, it could be said that the two people in question had lived together as husband and wife, taking into account the multifarious nature of marital relationships, and that the absence of a sexual relationship, particularly where the parties were older, did not prevent the relationship from being of that kind. He awarded her provision from the estate.
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 Callaghan [1985] Fam 1
- 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
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.
