UK: Lessons From A Recent Inheritance Dispute: Everything Changes To Be The Same As Before

Last Updated: 14 September 2017
Article by Paul Hewitt

A 31 year old estranged daughter has been awarded £30,000 out of her father's modest estate despite her father's clear wishes and the intended beneficiary's own financial difficulties.

It is a case that has generated considerable interest despite the modest value of the estate.

Those defending the principles of testamentary freedom will regret the Judge's willingness to override a will made less than a fortnight before death. They will also regret the Judge's throwaway comment linking his award to the percentage value of the estate. It is that comment rather than Saffman J's otherwise considered judgment working through all the relevant factors which is being seized on by disappointed children.

The case

'First, it is worth noting that the facts of the case with which I am concerned are very similar to those which are applied in the case of Ilott...'
In Nahajec v Fowle, Leeds County Court Chancery Business heard a 1975 Act claim by Elena Nahajac ('Elena') one of the three adult children of the late Stanley Nahajac ('Stanley'). Stanley had left his entire estate of circa £265,000 to a close friend, Stephen Fowle ('Stephen').

Despite Stanley's clear wishes, Stephen's own financial difficulties and evidence of estrangement, Elena, an independent adult, succeeded in her claim.


Stanley separated from Elena's mother around 1998 when Elena was 11.
Elena's evidence was that:

  • her father cut off contact, ignoring her childhood letters and not sending birthday or Christmas cards;
  • in 2007 she established contact with him but in 2009 he again cut her off, disapproving of her boyfriend; and
  • Stanley rebuffed subsequent attempts at contact going so far as to put down the phone when she called to tell him of her mother's death in 2012.

Elena's half-brother, Scott, gave evidence supporting Elena's account of her (lack of) relationship with their father.
Stephen's evidence, as a longstanding and close friend, was that Stanley had never spoken of a relationship with his daughter.

When Stanley made his Will, he also left an accompanying note to the executor stating:
'I have not seen or heard from any of my children in the last 18 years and I do not believe they have any interest in me or my welfare.'
Stanley died on 19 July 2015, less than two weeks after making his Will. Probate issued to Stephen in October 2015.

Elena's other half-brother, Mark, who is unable to work by virtue of ill-health and disability, compromised his own 1975 Act claim for a payment of £22,000.

Elena issued proceedings just within the six month deadline. She sought reasonable provision calculated in the sum of £70,227.
As a child, albeit an adult, Elena is entitled to claim 'reasonable financial provision' which is defined as that which 'would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for [her] to receive for [her] maintenance'.

Meaning of maintenance

As the Judge noted, maintenance 'is a broad concept but it cannot extend to any or everything which it would be desirable for the Claimant to have'.

In the Supreme Court in Ilott v Mitson Lord Hughes, who gave the leading judgment, grappled with the meaning of maintenance stating that 'It must import provision to meet the everyday expenses of living.'

He quoted a 1981 case.
'The word 'maintenance' connotes only payments which directly or indirectly enable the applicant in the future to discharge the cost of his daily living at whatever standard of living is appropriate to him. The provision that is to be made is to meet recurring expenses being expenses of living of an income nature.'

Thus maintenance can extend to payment of existing debts.

What question is the Court answering?

The Court is not faced with a question as to whether Stanley had acted unreasonably in making his Will

'but rather whether, looked at objectively his ... lack of disposition [for Elena] produces an unreasonable result.'

The Judge again cited Lord Hughes on the question of whether there is a requirement for a moral claim, Lord Hughes stating in Ilott

'In the case of a claimant adult son well capable of living independently, something more than the qualifying relationship is needed to found a claim ... Clearly, the presence or absence of a moral claim will often be at the centre of the decision under the 1975 Act.'

And again, quoting from the 1998 Court of Appeal decision in Re Hancock

'... it may be difficult for a child who is able to earn their own living to show that reasonable financial provision has not been made for them without some special circumstances such as a moral obligation.'

Key facts

Section 3(1) of the 1975 Act lists factors that need to be taken into account.
Elena was 31 at the time of the trial, living in rented accommodation. She worked part-time as a retail assistant on a zero hours contract and part-time at a veterinary surgery. Despite holding two jobs she qualified for Working Tax Credit.

She did additional unpaid hours at the veterinary surgery as part of her aspiration to become a qualified veterinary nurse.

She had debts of £6,600 some of which had been generated due to her inability to work during a cervical cancer diagnosis (she also said she suffered depression although there was no evidence this inhibited her from working).

She conceded during trial that once her debts were paid she would be able to live within her means.

Stephen gave evidence of financial difficulty. He had used the estate funds to pay a mortgage and inject funds into his struggling business. However he had also spent £18,000 on two Rolex watches (which he claimed was in line with Stanley's wishes).

In assessing obligations and responsibilities the Judge did say that although Elena was Stanley's daughter 'It does not necessarily follow that there is an obligation or responsibility to support a child who ... is of full age and is working.'

The key analysis appears to be the Judge's consideration of the section 3(1)(g) factor, 'any other matter, including the conduct of the Applicant or any other person which in the circumstances of the case the Court may consider relevant'.

This is the sub-section under which the Judge noted issues 'analogous to a moral claim may become relevant'.

In comments echoing Master Bowles' 2001 criticisms in Singer v Isaac of memoranda as 'self-serving documents, being self-justificatory of the deceased's conduct', the Judge in this case focused on two discrepancies in Stanley's note to his executor. The first was the reference to having had no contact for 18 years which did not reconcile with the evidence.

Secondly, 'and perhaps more importantly' the Judge commented, the note stated 'All of my children are of independent means and have or have had their own life and family and are, to my knowledge, sufficiently independent of means not to require any provision from me'.

The Judge said 'it seems incontrovertible that [Elena] who is not leading an extravagant lifestyle was only making ends meet by taking out loans ... it is difficult to see how this description could sensibly be applied to her.'


Lack of provision unreasonable

The Judge's conclusion was that the Will did not make reasonable provision taking into account all the Section 3(1) factors and that although Elena is an adult and independent that her claim was 'based on something more than simply the qualifying relationship'.

Although there was no relationship, that was 'not for want of trying on [Elena's] part ... She appeared to have a father who was stubborn and intransigent. That was not her fault'.

Her needs, her aspirations and the size of the estate justified provision notwithstanding Stephen's own financial difficulties.

The Judge did refer to Stanley's wishes as weighing in Stephen's favour but those wishes did not make the lack of provision necessarily reasonable, especially as the reasons included 'a probable misunderstanding of [Elena's] financial position'.

The Judge was also clearly impressed by what he regarded as a 'genuine wish to become a registered veterinary nurse.'

What provision should be made

Having reached that conclusion the Judge then turned to the question of what provision ought to be made.

Elena claimed £70,227 (reduced during the trial to £59,000 on the concession that a student loan would cover some of the costs).
Stephen's counsel argued that without the £6,600 debts Elena would be able to manage and so the maximum award should be to clear the debt.

The Judge concluded that would be a 'fairly frugal existence and would not provide her with any scope to meet any expenses that would be necessary for her to improve her position'. Equally he felt that even discounted to £59,000 Elena's claim was too high. He accepted that only represented 22% of the estate but that was 'to apply the wrong test'.

Ultimately he came out at a capitalised figure of £30,000 as his 'best estimate of the capitalised costs of maintenance for a reasonable time going forward to take into account the possibility, albeit contingent, of the Claimant undertaking a course which ultimately results in her becoming a veterinary nurse and which enables her to look after herself financially if such a course is undertaken'.

The Judge then set out a number of caveats undoubtedly in an effort to show that he has considered all sorts of possibilities and thus rendering the decision pretty much appeal proof even without taking into account the Supreme Court in Ilott v Mitson emphasising the breadth of discretion 1975 Act claims afford a trial judge.

He added
'Had my hands not been tied to a capitalisation of maintenance the award would have been greater but my hands are so tied.'

It is his preceding throwaway comment, contradicting his earlier statement that referring to the value of the claim as a percentage of the estate would be to 'apply the wrong test', which is being seized on by Claimants to bolster their claim

'For what it is worth I note that in terms of the percentage of the value of the net estate, it is 11.3%. Mrs Ilott's award as a percentage of her mother's net estate was within approximately 1% of that.

There is little doubt that many claimants and their solicitors regard that percentage of the estate reference as providing the concrete floor in negotiation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Paul Hewitt
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.