An interesting recent Inheritance Act claim
Cindylee Cockell v Natalie Fong Cockell & Anor [2025] EWHC 2490 (Ch)
This is an interesting case (link to decision), that arose after the death of Mr Cockell (D) a tattoo artist of some renown, when one of his adult children (A) made a claim for reasonable provision from his estate. The twist in this case was that the existence of A was entirely unknown to D’s wife (W) and his other children, until after his death. It seems that D had led somewhat of a double life. It appears that D had somewhat exaggerated his assets and the extent of his tattoo business. He had also made various promises of financial and other support to the applicant.
The application and outcome
A made an application under section 1.1(c) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Act) for reasonable financial provision. A sought an order under section 9 of the Act, the effect of which would have been to divest W as co-owner of the matrimonial property (the Property), of up to one half of its value, in order that it be applied to provide the reasonable provision sought.
A’s application was dismissed.
There was nothing to rebut the presumption of a beneficial joint tenancy. In those circumstances an order under section 9 of the Act, might be just, if:
D’s interest in the Property had been gifted to W; or
the Property had been purchased in joint names but with monies only provided by D; or
the purpose of the transfer was to take the property out of the D’s estate; or
W owed independent obligations to A.
None of those circumstances applied in the present case, with Master Bowles finding that:
D and W had worked together during their lifetimes to purchase the Property which was their family home. D and W both intended that their interest in the Property would vest, on death, in the other.
W owed no obligations to A of any kind. Whilst A was D’s daughter, her existence was entirely unknown to W, until after D’s death.
After D’s death W, who is disabled, had been suffering financially, living on between £30 and £130 a month. W sold the Property and applied the proceeds of sale to purchasing a cheaper property, paying off debts, and meeting the legal fees arising out of the application. At around the time of the hearing W was left with about £34,500 from the proceeds. As a consequence, Master Bowles found that W’s circumstances were such that an order, under section 9, depriving her of any part of the Property would have resulted in an injustice.
Master Bowles went on to consider the question of reasonable provision, had he found that D and W were tenants in common, meaning that D’s share of the Property would have formed part of his estate. Master Bowles found that whilst A’s claim was modest, as were her financial circumstances, there had been no failure to make reasonable provision for her, for the following reasons:
In the absence of exceptional circumstances and given W’s disability and financial situation, it was not unreasonable for D to leave his entire estate to W and not to make provision for A.
It is not unreasonable, in of itself for a testator, not to make provision for an adult child, even one in modest circumstances.
W had made various promises to A about assisting her with a planned move to the UK and providing her a job. Whilst A might have been disappointed in her expectations this did not mean, given that D’s resources were not plentiful, that he was under any obligation to make reasonable provision from his or to diminish the provision in his wife’s favour to accommodate the gift to A.
This post is not intended to and should not be taken as legal advice.
(c) by Liam Hemmings
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License.
See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/