Oliver Ingham successful for widow excluded from husband’s £1.9m estate

20th February 2023

3PB Barristers’ (3 Paper Buildings) experienced chancery and estates barrister Oliver InghamOliver InghamCall: 2015 has successfully acted for the claimant widow after the initial exclusion from her husband’s will, following a marriage of 66 years, with the judgment securing close to £1,000,000 for the wife.

In the case of Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam), Mrs Kaur and her four daughters had been excluded from her husband’s will because he wished to leave his entire estate to his two sons, with his inheritance passing solely down the male line. Following the death of her husband, Mrs Kaur had been forced to leave the matrimonial home and instead live with one of her daughters and had only welfare benefits to support her financially.

The case was heard before Mr Justice Peel (the Lead Judge of the Financial Remedy Court for England and Wales), with judgment handed down on 14 February 2023. The Court was able to determine the claim urgently (only 12 weeks after issue) and made an Order under the Inheritance Act 1975, which provided a 50% share of the £1.2- £1.9m estate for Mrs Kaur. The Court concluded that this was "the clearest possible case" in which an Order should be made under the Act.

Mr Justice Peel found: "The reason why the will was crafted in these terms, excluding [Mrs Kaur] and the other four siblings (the sisters…), was because the deceased wished to leave his estate solely down the male line…. Weighing up all the factors in s3, it seems to me that this is the clearest possible case entitling me to conclude that reasonable provision has not been made for C. It is hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached…..after a marriage of 66 years, to which she made a full and equal contribution, and during which all the assets accrued, she is left with next to nothing. The divorce cross check points unerringly towards an equal division of the assets. C expressly avers that such a division would meet her needs; she does not pursue a case, sometimes advanced in financial remedies proceedings, that she should receive a greater share than 50% in order to meet her needs. Her intention is to purchase a modest property near her daughter. Her income requirements are modest, and C accepts that all her capital and budgetary needs can comfortably be met within the sums available if she receives an equal share, whether her half share is of a gross estate value at £1.99m, or a gross estate value at £1.2m."

Oliver was instructed solicitor Jessika Bhatti at Meadows Ryan who said : "I feel privileged to be a part of an injustice made right. My client's age, ill health and acute financial needs were the driving force behind this case, and it is with great honour that our legal system was able to overturn an injustice." Ms Bhatti said she believed the case would set a precedent that would allow the "most vulnerable individuals" to seek justice without having to endure "the unpleasantries of a trial".

The Judgment has been of huge media and legal interest due to the variety of grounds covered and has been widely reported in news outlets, including the BBC and The Guardian, as well as throughout the Indian media.

To instruct Oliver - who also acted in the landmark Hirachand case - please contact his clerk David Fielder on [email protected] or telephone 020 7583 8055. Oliver will be running a number of briefings about this case, please email [email protected] if you would like to attend this.