header-logo header-logo

24 January 2020
Issue: 7871 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Record claim on husband's estate

The High Court has upheld a widow’s right to bring a claim against her husband’s estate more than 26 years after grant of probate

The High Court has upheld a widow’s right to bring a claim against her husband’s estate more than 26 years after grant of probate

The judgment, handed down this week, Thakare v Bhusate [2020] EWHC 52 (Ch), sets a new landmark in the length of time Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims can be brought after death. The previous record of six years was set in Stock v Brown [1994] 1 FLR 840. Normally, claims for reasonable financial provision must be brought within six months of the grant of probate.

Mr and Mrs Bhusate married in India in 1979 when he was 61, twice previously married with five children, and she was 28 and spoke little English. They lived in London and had one child before he died intestate in 1990. The matrimonial home failed to sell, and Mrs Bhusate continues to live there with her son.

Chief Master Marsh granted Mrs Bhusate permission to bring a claim out of time (nearly 25 years after grant of probate), partly on the basis her acrimonious relationship with her stepchildren had obstructed the sale of the house.

The stepchildren appealed, arguing reasonable financial provision had already been made for Mrs Bhusate at the time of Mr Bhusate’s death, and it was her own ‘fault’ that she lost this entitlement. Dismissing the appeal, however, Mr Edwin Johnson QC concluded it was inappropriate to interfere with the Chief Master’s decision. Moreover, he said the ‘administration of the estate was left in limbo’ due to the stepchildren’s lack of co-operation.

Paul Hewitt, partner at Withers, who acted for Mrs Bhusate, said: ‘Despite the eye-catching amount of time which has elapsed since her husband's death, the facts in Mrs Bhusate's case are very specific.’

Issue: 7871 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll