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

It is not possible to balance in any meaningful way the benefit to Susan of a longer period in a private facility as against the benefit to David of making appropriate provision for his maintenance, and I accept that in reaching my conclusion in this case I have been forced to adopt a broad brush to achieve a just outcome given the views that I have reached regarding David’s claim and the needs of the other parties, and in particular, Susan.

Taking into account all of the evidence in this case, the submissions that I have received and the list of factors identified at section 3(1) of the Act, I have concluded that reasonable financial provision in this case would be for David to receive 25% of the Deceased’s residuary estate, with the balance being shared equally between Ruth and Susan. I have not provided for an equal split between the three siblings as I consider that a one quarter share would be sufficient to provide David with appropriate accommodation were he to live independently from Ruth (which is the maximum level of maintenance which I consider appropriate for him). This lower share also acts as an acknowledgement that David has already enjoyed a significant benefit from the estate as a result of his rent free occupation of the Property since 2013. However, I do not consider that either he or Ruth should now be required to account (by mesne profits or occupation rent) for the benefit that they have enjoyed from the occupation of the Property to date.

On the assumption that the distributable estate is worth approximately £600,000 my award will mean that David should receive around £150,000 and Ruth and Susan approximately £225,000 each. This would give Ruth and David a combined sum of approximately £375,000 to rehouse themselves, alternatively, if they sought to purchase the Property from the estate, they would need in the region of £225,000 to do so (although the final purchase price would be a matter of valuation and there would also be legal costs and Stamp Duty Land Tax to be taken into consideration). Equally, if David so wished, he would have a fund available to him to enable him to live independently from Ruth. On the evidence that I have seen £150,000 would be sufficient to enable him to purchase a one bedroomed flat.

On the subject of the Property, whilst I recognise Ruth and David’s sincere wish to remain there, I have considerable doubts as to the feasibility of this wish and their ability to raise the funds to purchase it from the estate within a reasonable period of time. They have already had a considerable period of rent-free accommodation from the estate and this cannot continue indefinitely. Nonetheless, I recognise that they should not be expected to move immediately; any arrangements that they make either to purchase the Property from the estate or to move elsewhere will take a little time, and the possession claim will not be dealt with before November in any event. Although I am prepared to give David and Ruth time to make arrangements to purchase the Property or to rehouse themselves, this will be for a fixed period and I would expect Susan to be compensated for their continued occupation of the Property during this period.

In order to deal with these matters, I propose making supplemental orders under section 2(4) of the Act to achieve the following:

I will hear from the parties on these points following the hand down of this judgment.

That is my decision.