The great majority of financial provision claims, ie those under
the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975,
result in what is called a clean break order. However, occasionally
claims are compromised on the basis of an order for periodical
payments for a defined period. The case of Taylor v Bell &
Another [2013] EW Misc B3 (CC) deals with a claim by a
disinherited son to vary such an order. The background facts are
set out below.
Peter Gardiner died in December 2006 leaving an estate valued at
approximately £2 million. He had two sons, Lee Gardiner and
Miles Taylor. He left £350,000 to two charities, his personal
possessions to Lee, and the residue to a discretionary trust. Lee,
a number of named individuals and any charity of the trustees'
choosing were to be the beneficiaries of this trust. Miles was
excluded and no provision was made for him in his father's
will.
Miles made a 1975 Act claim for reasonable financial provision out
of his father's estate. The Judge described Miles as a talented
singer who wishes to become an opera singer, and noted that he has
some learning difficulties which affect his literary skills and
academic performance.
In April 2008, while the 1975 Act proceedings were ongoing, Miles
suffered multiple chest and liver injuries in a traffic accident
and was in hospital for several weeks. Owing to the accident, Miles
had to restart his sixth form education.
In May 2008, the 1975 Act claim was settled out of court and the
settlement recorded in a Consent Order. The Order provided for
Miles' reasonable maintenance through sixth form college and
university. It provided a maximum of £210,000, the payments
to come to an end in August 2014.
Following his disrupted sixth form education, Miles attended the
Royal Northern College of Music for a degree course, but, partly
owing to his learning difficulties, he failed his second year
exams. He then transferred universities. His new university course
is a four-year course, due to end in the summer of 2015. He also
hopes to study a two-year postgraduate course starting in September
2015. On the basis that his circumstances had changed, his
education was disrupted, and he had not claimed any money for fees
and accommodation for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 academic years,
Miles asked for his unpaid maintenance to be reallocated to the
2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years. The executors of his
father's estate refused, saying they had no power to amend the
terms of the Consent Order.
When Miles applied to the Court, the executors raised a number of
objections in evidence to argue that the Order should not be
varied. These included arguments that the level of his musical
talent was insufficient for postgraduate study, he was
irresponsible with money, and that there are other sources of funds
available including support from his mother, government loans and
grants, and other grants and scholarships. The executors'
primary objection was that the Court could only vary the Order in
limited circumstances, none of which had arisen.
On the evidence provided by Miles' music tutor, the Judge found
that he was committed to his singing career and seemed to have good
prospects of success in achieving a place on the postgraduate
course. He dismissed the executors' arguments that Miles was
irresponsible with money and took into consideration the disruption
to his education.
The Judge also found that he had complete discretion to vary the
terms of the Order, and decided to so because Miles had not
received the maximum amount in the original Order.
One of the executors, Mr Bell, explained in evidence that Miles
sought total expenses of £90,000. However, the executors by
that stage only retained £38,479. The executors' evidence
was that when it had become apparent that the full amount of
£210,000 was not going to be claimed, they had made
additional distributions to the discretionary beneficiaries
(although he was unable to give specific dates when cross
examined).
The Court awarded Miles £6,500 for the current academic year
and £7,500 for each of the following academic years,
conditional on him being offered a place on the postgraduate
course. The Court did not specify the purpose for these sums but
stated that they should cover Miles' course fees and assist
with his rent.
In defending the application, the executors had incurred costs of
£23,267.99 which the Judge described as 'both
unfortunate and disproportionate'. In particular, he was
'far from convinced that it was necessary for the executors
to instruct an expert' as to whether Miles had real vocal
potential. Accordingly, the Judge limited the level of expenses
that the executors could recover from the estate.
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.