The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”) allows certain categories of individuals to advance a claim against an estate for ‘reasonable financial provision.’ Any award that the court makes under the 1975 Act is always fact specific and the range of awards made varies greatly so it is always interesting to see what the court does in varying circumstances.
The recent case of Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] centred on Alexander Klein’s estate. Under the terms of his will dated 5 January 2011, he provided his wife of nearly 17 years, Elena Klein, a lump sum of £300,000 and provided a trust for their minor son for £100,000. Mr Klein’s estate totalled approximately £9.03 million. The estate comprised of the matrimonial home (valued at £900,000 and company shares valued at approximately £8 million). Cydlia Alder, who was Mr Klein’s friend and business partner, was to receive £200,000 and 10% of the residuary estate. The remaining 90% of the residuary estate passed into a charitable trust.
The Court had a difficult task in assessing the true value of the estate, due to both Ms Alder’s failure to provide the necessary information and the various withdrawals she made from the companies, without authority. Prior to the trial, Mrs Klein had successfully had Ms Alder removed as an Executor of the estate. Ms Alder did not participate in the trial.
When a 1975 Act claim centres on what provision (if any) a spouse should receive, the starting point of the Court is to apply the divorce cross check, whereby the court considers what the spouse in question would have received had the parties divorced. The starting point is 50%. There are various factors that can increase or decrease the provision, such as any pre-acquired assets in the marriage, length of the marriage and whether there are any children of the marriage.
In consideration of Mrs Klein’s claim, the Court heard that she had given up her career to support her husband and was completely financially reliant on him, the evidence suggesting that he had been financially dominant (with Mrs Klein being 39 years his junior). Evidence indicated that Mrs Klein maintained a lifestyle consistent with being wealthy but was not extravagant.
The Court had to assess whether the provision that Mrs Klein had received under the terms of the Will amounted to reasonable financial provision. Ultimately the Court held that it did not and awarded Mrs Klein a minimum of £3 million, which included the matrimonial home. Due to the conduct of Ms Alder, she was ordered to pay Mrs Klein’s costs on the indemnity basis.
Whilst there is no hard and fast rule for what provision the Court will provide a spouse, given the circumstances of this case, it is somewhat unsurprising that the Court increased the provision for Mrs Klein. Testators have testamentary freedom, but you need to be mindful of potential claims against your estate. Careful and thoughtful estate planning is key. If you consider that you may a claim against a loved one’s estate, or you need to defend a claim, our specialised contentious probate team can help.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
