This site uses Cookies. Details of our usage of cookies.
If you wish to block cookies on your machine, please go to AboutCookies.org to find out how, although if you do so you may not be able to log in to this site.

SIGN IN:
Generic image for article
LAWYER'S OPINION

ELECTION OF CLAIM

© Andrew Grime - 3 Pump Court Chambers

December 2011

Hot off the press is the recent decision in the case of Pinnock v. Rochester (2011)(transcript yet to be approved) where Sales J confirmed that a Claimant may make a claim for financial provision under Inheritance (Provisions for Family & Dependents) Act 1975 (the Act) and also launch a separate claim to challenge the validity of the Will.

The Facts

The brief facts of the case were that Mr Pinnock appealed against the striking out of his claim challenging the validity of his late father’s Will. The deceased had executed his Will a mere three days prior to his death and there was an issue as to his testamentary capacity.

Mr Pinnock brought proceedings under the Act and a settlement was agreed in the sum of £28,000.00.

Subsequent to the settlement Mr Pinnock issued proceedings to challenge the validity of his late father’s Will and the executrix and legatee applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that he was precluded from bringing such a claim by virtue of the doctrine of election. Further, the executrix argued that it was an abuse of the court’s process and inequitable to bring such a claim when the Claimant had already entered into a consent order under the proceedings brought under the Act.

The Outcome

At first instance the Recorder struck out the Claimant’s claim.

On Appeal Sales J held that a claim by a child under the Act was ‘conceptually different’ from a challenge in respect of the validity of a Will. A child’s need for financial provision under the Act might be urgent but this did not preclude him from bringing a later claim in respect of the validity of the Will.

The Judge found that Mr Pinnock had not asserted the Will’s validity by accepting a compromise under the proceedings brought under the Act, nor was there anything in the consent order which ruled out the possibility of a challenge. He found that there was nothing in Re. Pointer (No.2)(1946) Ch324 Ch D which undermined that analysis.

Conclusion

It has been a common misapprehension that potential claimant’s could only choose to make one claim or the other. In future legal advisors should be careful when advising Claimant’s to consider all options and not to rule out more than one claim provided there are sufficient grounds. It is also a salutary lesson to those advising estates on settlement, to ensure that any such potential claims are specifically dealt with within the terms of any consent order. 

Andrew Grime

© Andrew Grime - 3 Pump Court Chambers

December 2011

3 Pump Court Chambers

Winchester: 01962-868161

London: 0207-3530711

Swindon: 01793-539899

Email: ag@3pumpcourt.com

Web: 3 Pump Court

Biography of Andrew Grime

Disclaimer:

“The information and any commentary in the law contained in the articles is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by the author or the publisher or Pump Court Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. If you are not a solicitor, you are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. If you are a solicitor, you should seek advice from Counsel on a formal basis”.

MORE ARTICLES IN LAWYER'S OPINION

ARTICLE RESOURCES

  • A laser printer Print article
  • Book with boomark