Clare Kelly provides a round-up of recent contentious probate case law
- Ames v Jones provides a reminder that claims by adult children under the Inheritance Act will not be successful where they depend on a lifestyle choice.
- Lloyd v Jones confirms that dementia alone (even where this is accompanied by bizarre delusions) will not mean a will is invalid on the grounds of capacity.
- Guney v Kingsley Napley highlights the emotional toll of contentious probate disputes.
The hopes of adult children in claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), given a boost by Ilott v Mitson [2015] EWCA Civ 797, [2016] 1 All ER 932, have been brought back down to earth by the decision in Ames v Jones & Ors [2016] EW Misc B67 (CC), where provision was denied because the claimant’s financial circumstances were found to be a lifestyle choice.
The case concerned an I(PFD)A 1975 claim by an adult child (Danielle) for provision from her late father’s estate. Her parents divorced when she was young, and she lived with her mother but maintained
