header-logo header-logo

24 January 2020
Issue: 7871 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Record claim on husband's estate

The High Court has upheld a widow’s right to bring a claim against her husband’s estate more than 26 years after grant of probate

The High Court has upheld a widow’s right to bring a claim against her husband’s estate more than 26 years after grant of probate

The judgment, handed down this week, Thakare v Bhusate [2020] EWHC 52 (Ch), sets a new landmark in the length of time Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims can be brought after death. The previous record of six years was set in Stock v Brown [1994] 1 FLR 840. Normally, claims for reasonable financial provision must be brought within six months of the grant of probate.

Mr and Mrs Bhusate married in India in 1979 when he was 61, twice previously married with five children, and she was 28 and spoke little English. They lived in London and had one child before he died intestate in 1990. The matrimonial home failed to sell, and Mrs Bhusate continues to live there with her son.

Chief Master Marsh granted Mrs Bhusate permission to bring a claim out of time (nearly 25 years after grant of probate), partly on the basis her acrimonious relationship with her stepchildren had obstructed the sale of the house.

The stepchildren appealed, arguing reasonable financial provision had already been made for Mrs Bhusate at the time of Mr Bhusate’s death, and it was her own ‘fault’ that she lost this entitlement. Dismissing the appeal, however, Mr Edwin Johnson QC concluded it was inappropriate to interfere with the Chief Master’s decision. Moreover, he said the ‘administration of the estate was left in limbo’ due to the stepchildren’s lack of co-operation.

Paul Hewitt, partner at Withers, who acted for Mrs Bhusate, said: ‘Despite the eye-catching amount of time which has elapsed since her husband's death, the facts in Mrs Bhusate's case are very specific.’

Issue: 7871 / Categories: Legal News , Wills & Probate
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll