When can financial provision continue after death?

What happened?

Henry Stamford Thirsk, a wealthy farmer and property owner, passed away in April 2022, leaving an estate valued at over £26 million. His will provided for his surviving spouse, Sarah Jane Thirsk, with a £5 million legacy and the right to occupy their matrimonial home (Glebe Farm) for life. He left the residue of the estate to his son from a previous relationship, Henry Thirsk Jr.

Sarah challenged the will under the 1975 Act, claiming it did not provide reasonably for her. Sarah and Henry had lived an extravagant lifestyle together, with the couple's spending reaching over £700,000 a year, nearly half of which was incurred in shooting costs.

Sarah sought ongoing costs of over £376,000 a year for expenses, covering shooting, running a private plane, three luxury cars, and multiple holidays.

The court considered her 19-year relationship with Henry (including one year of marriage), her financial needs, and Henry's wishes for his estate.

What the court considered?

The length of the relationship:

The court treated the couple's 19-year cohabitation as part of the marital relationship when assessing the claim, despite their formal marriage lasting only one year.

How assets were built up:

The court distinguished between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. Assets acquired during the relationship using inherited funds were considered partially matrimonial but not entirely shared. Assets that existed before the relationship were considered non-matrimonial and therefore not shared.

What reasonable provision looks like:

The court assessed Sarah's financial needs against her very high standard of living throughout the relationship, but also emphasised that financial provision should aim to help a surviving spouse move towards independence, rather than support a lifestyle indefinitely.

Henry's wishes:

These were taken into account, though not determinative. The 1975 Act allows the court to override testamentary freedom where a will doesn't provide reasonably, regardless of the deceased's intentions.

The outcome

The court ruled that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for Sarah. It made an order which mirrored the deceased's son's final offer to transfer Glebe Farm outright to Sarah and increase the lump-sum legacy to £5 million plus interest.

This provision equated to a capitalised income fund sufficient to meet her adjusted needs for 30 years (£275,000 annually).

What this means for you?

Few estates include private planes and luxury cars, but this case serves as a valuable reminder to carefully consider how your assets will be distributed. For families with complex relationships or substantial wealth, seeking professional advice can help ensure your wishes are respected while minimising the risk of challenges.

For those who believe they've been unfairly treated in a loved one's will, this case shows that the courts can step in to provide fair financial provision, particularly for dependants like spouses or partners.

If you'd like to discuss your situation or learn more about how we can help, please get in touch with our Contentious Trusts and Probate team. Whether you need help reviewing your estate plans or are considering making a claim under the 1975 Act, our experienced team is here to support you every step of the way.