Assumption of responsibility – Family provision – Wills

Baynes v Hedger & ors: CA (Civ Div) (Sir Andrew Morritt (Chancellor), Lords Justice Longmore, Goldring): 7 May 2009

The appellant beneficiary (H) appealed against a decision ([2008] EWHC 1587 (Ch), [2008] 2 FLR 1805) to reject her claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for further provision under a will.

The testator (M) was H’s godmother, and was a quasi-parental figure to H and her siblings. M bought and sold various houses in which they all lived, and later purchased a flat for H. H had financial difficulties, and loaned and borrowed various amounts of money from M over the years. M and H subsequently came to an agreement that M would no longer give H financial assistance. Notwithstanding that agreement, H sought and obtained from M various short-term loans and sums of money. She also sought to obtain a substantial lump sum. M agreed to assist H. M noted that H was requesting for help with her debts, while M also stated that she did not want H to feel that M was supporting her. M died, and in her will she bequeathed a small cash gift to H. H issued proceedings for reasonable provision under M’s will under section 1(1)(e), on the grounds that she was being maintained by M immediately before her death, and that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for her. The court held that H was being maintained by M immediately before her death, but that the will did not fail to make reasonable provision. It stated that in the few years before M’s death, she had given to H cash gifts and interest-free loans that were unlikely to be repaid, and therefore H was being partly maintained. It also stated that H had exploited M’s generosity, and that M had not put H in a position of dependency on her.

Held: (1) The assumption of responsibility for maintenance by another was a necessary ingredient of a person entitled to claim under section 1(1)(e), Re Beaumont (Deceased), [1980] Ch 444 Ch D and Jelley v Iliffe [1981] Fam 128 CA (Civ Div) applied. However, the trial judge had held that M had not assumed responsibility for H’s maintenance. He had found that the payments made to H in the last few years before M’s death only amounted to short-term stop-gap payments, and that M was only concerned with helping H with her debts. Accordingly, M made no firm commitment to H, and it followed that H was not eligible under section 1(1)(e).

(2) In any event, the judge had correctly held that the will had made reasonable financial provision for H.

Appeal dismissed.

Thomas Dumont (instructed by Sears Tooth) for the appellant; Jeffrey Terry (instructed by Allan Janes) for the third respondent; Emily Campbell (instructed by Sheridan) for the fourth respondent.