No: FD22F00062 - [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)

David

As I have already mentioned, David is 74 years old. He has formerly worked, most recently as a salesman and porter, but ceased employment in 2020 at the time of the Covid pandemic. His income consists of the State Pension and some additional pension credit and currently stands at approximately £950 per month. I understand that he currently has a small overdraft of around £300 or so and no savings of any significance.

His first witness statement set out a list of outgoings on household and other expenses and suggested that he had an annual income deficit of c.£950. David’s third witness statement of 26^th June 2025 states that there had not been any significant changes to his finances since his first statement. Exhibited to both statements were various bank statements. These show that David’s outgoings do not correspond with the details provided in his first witness statement, and that he appears to be spending a significant amount of money on collectible coins and stamps each month together with a number of charitable donations.

Under cross examination David’s finances became clearer. I was told that the expenditure figures for household bills set out in his first witness statement reflected the total household expenditure, rather than his one half share. In practice the majority (but not all) of the main bills are paid by Ruth and David reimburses her for his one half share. The precise extent of these expenses is not wholly clear. Following cross-examination it appeared (largely from information included within Ruth’s witness statement) that their joint monthly spend on household expenses was perhaps £700 or so. However, in the course of preparing this judgment I have noted that the figures provided by Ruth do not include any provision for Council Tax on the Property (which I understand from David’s first witness statement may be around £120pm) and by adopting summer figures, allows only for a total monthly fuel spend of £50. It seems to me that £850 may be a more realistic figure for their current monthly outgoings.

On this basis David’s share is approximately £425 per month. His income, as shown on the bank statements is c.£950pm. He has no savings and the balance of David’s income is spent on other personal items, including presents for his son and on collectible coins and stamps. I recognise that some of this expenditure will represent personal items of immediate use such as clothes, dentist etc. However, it seems that David may currently be spending around £450 per month on coins, stamps or presents for other individuals.

David’s first witness statement was prepared by his then solicitors, and I do not consider that the confusion over the details of household expenses within it was a deliberate attempt to deceive. In much of his oral evidence I consider that he was truthful and trying to assist the court. However, David was initially reluctant to provide details of his collecting habit and in his responses to Mr Poole’s questions he became combative and sought to downplay his spending in this area. I found that he was more forthcoming in response to some questions that I asked him on this issue, although I have still treated his evidence on this point with some caution.

David referred to his coin collection in his first witness statement although he described them as “a small collection of commemorative coins which are mostly silver or gold plated but no solid gold coins”. The statement did not ascribe a value to this collection. From his responses to questions that I asked, I understand that he may own around 50 sets or series of coins. Although he told me that he had perhaps spent £70-£100 per set, when I asked him the value of the collection he suggested that it was £40,000 and referred to it as an inheritance for his son.

I consider this valuation improbable, and David himself described it as a guess. Ruth described David purchasing “silly things” and doubted that many of the items bought by David would have an innate value and I consider that this is more probable. Nonetheless it is clear that David has spent, and continues to spend, a significant portion of his income after his contribution to household expenses on these collectible items and other presents (perhaps around £450 per month).

That said, it is clear that David spends little money on anything else. He and Ruth clearly live extremely modestly and do so within their combined means. He does not smoke or drink and he and Ruth do not go out for dinner or to other entertainment. Ruth has given up their car. Nor is David necessarily paying his full share of the overall household expenses. Ruth is making repayments of £228 per month in respect of a loan that was taken out to remove foam insulation from the loft in the property. David is not contributing to those repayments.

David has also disclosed that under a Conditional Fee Agreement with his former solicitors he will have a liability for legal costs in the sum of £52,365.28 (inclusive of VAT) in the event that he succeeds in obtaining provision from the Deceased’s estate. I understand that these are the base costs and that no success fee is charged. For the reasons that I have already given I have not taken these costs into account in my assessment of David’s financial needs and resources.

David does not own any property. He is currently living in the Property, but he has no entitlement to do so. Mr Green as the Deceased’s personal representative is seeking possession of the Property and is pursuing a claim against David and Ruth for mesne profits in respect of their occupation together with costs. He thus stands to be homeless if those proceedings succeed.

Depending upon the outcome of the possession proceedings, both Ruth and David may also have costs liabilities to be met in respect of those proceedings. Indeed he and Ruth are jointly liable for an interim costs order made against them within the possession proceedings of £1,000. Although the Hirachand principle does not apply to those costs (as they have not been incurred within these proceedings) I have not taken them into account as their liability and amount is currently uncertain. I also note that from a practical perspective, even if costs are awarded against them, their effective liability will be no more than 50% of the bill (as Ruth will be entitled to 50% of any costs reimbursed to the estate).

David also has a number of health issues which include osteoporosis, arthritis, kidney stones and a thyroid condition. The condition that currently has the greatest impact on David’s quality of life is a valgus deformity of both ankles which affects his mobility. He has had surgery on these in the past, but he has suffered a collapse of both ankles leading to cellulitis infections and swellings. He has an unhealed ulcer on the site of a former operation and that he is on a lengthy waiting list for plastic surgery to remedy this. He is on strong painkillers and his leg currently requires bandaging twice a week.

Mr Poole makes the point that David may be entitled to additional state benefits that he is not currently claiming including attendance allowance and housing benefit (in the event that he needs to rehouse himself). I do not know whether David would qualify for attendance allowance and have not taken it into consideration. I recognise that were David to be made homeless the local authority would have an obligation to house him, although such accommodation might prove far from ideal.