“She wasn’t married to him, wasn’t bequeathed anything so is very unlikely to be entitled to anything”

“He kept you for 21 years and you were financially dependent on him for 21 years – that’s a long free ride, not a reason to get even more”
 
“She knew what she was getting in to – deserves nothing”

These are some of the comments posted below an online report from the Daily Mail about a case in the High Court being brought by Amanda Doyle, 57, against the estate of the late 7th Marquess of Bath.

Ms Doyle was one of 74 lovers, also known as ‘wifelets’ of the late Alexander Thynn who was legally married to actress Anna Gael for 51 years. He died, leaving a personal fortune of £23m, aged 87 after contracting coronavirus in April 2020.

The Marquess made a will in which he left his estate to his wife Anna and their children. None of his lovers were beneficiaries and Amanda Doyle has now brought a claim against the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.

The Act allows certain categories of those related to or financially dependent on a deceased individual, to bring a claim against their estate. The basis of the claim is that the will (or intestacy if there is no will) fails to make ‘reasonable financial provision’ for them.

Amanda Doyle’s claim is apparently that for the 21 years of her relationship with the Marquess, she was financially dependent on him having since 2004 lived in a cottage on the Longleat estate.

The Court will need to weigh up a number of different factors in deciding whether or not to make an award to Ms Doyle. It is clear that many will not have much sympathy for her particular claim, but it’s important to say that the Inheritance Act 1975 does play a vital role in preventing hardship and injustice in a wide variety of circumstances.

A successful case involving a granddaughter who was financially dependent on her grandmother is the 2019 case of Delaforte v Flood;

In 2006 Mrs Joan Flood was diagnosed as suffering from dementia. She was an elderly widow who lived on her own and had two adult children, Paul and Annette. In November 2008 she fell and fractured her femur and could no longer live alone.

Annette’s daughter Lynsey (who was then aged 26) came to the rescue. She took redundancy from her job at the Financial Times, gave up her rented flat and moved in with her grandmother to care for her. Over some 7 years, Lynsey received income of around £800 pm, made up of carers allowance, attendance allowance and her very limited earnings as a dance teacher.

Lynsey provided devoted care to Joan under increasingly demanding circumstances until Joan’s death in April 2016.  Joan’s Will, made in 2006, left her estate to Paul and Annette. Her estate was worth £632,000 with the main asset being her house valued at £545,000.

Lynsey brought a claim against Joan’s estate as her financial dependent under the Inheritance (Provision for Families and Dependents) Act 1975.  Provision was sought on the basis that Lynsey should receive a lump sum to allow her:

(i)         living expenses of £3,100 per month for 3 years during which she would develop her self-employed dance business.
(ii)        to buy a car
(iii)       to have capital savings.

Lynsey’s years spent away from the job market had damaged her earning capacity so that self-employment as a dance teacher, which was her ambition, was the most realistic option.

Annette supported her daughter’s claim, but her uncle Paul opposed it. He argued that:
·       Lynsey did not qualify as a financial dependent at all as she lived with Joan for her own benefit,
·       she was not a full-time carer, and
·       she had been paid for the care provided (commercially paid carers are unable to claim).

These arguments were abandoned during the trial, which took place in February 2019. Instead, Paul argued that Lynsey only needed modest provision because she had been managing on a very low income for some time.

The Judge was unimpressed with this suggestion and awarded Lynsey £110,000. However, he made it clear that the award was to meet her reasonable financial needs rather than being a ‘reward’ for her obviously meritorious conduct.

This is a point that it’s important to stress to potential claimants, who will very often frame the case in terms of either their ‘moral entitlement’ or as being brought because of perceived bad behaviour by their opponent (or the deceased). The Court does not want to get involved in ‘mudslinging’ arguments and the focus of the judge will always be primarily on financial need.

High profile claims, like the one brought by Amanda Doyle, are helpful in highlighting this area of law. It’s important that as many people as possible are aware of the possibility of having to bring (or defend) a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 in the event of a death.

Sarah Young – Director & Solicitor