I am plead to finally be allowed to share of the judgment formally handed down this morning in Kars v Brown and ors [2026] EWFC 4 where I represented the successful applicant in an Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim.
This is the same case which my previous blog concerned:
The trial was heard before Deputy High Court Judge Naomi Davey between 8-9 October 2025. The oral evidence was heard and there were written submissions afterwards.
My client was the former spouse of Jon Lamb who sadly died of covid-19 on 30 December 2021. At the time of his death, my client and Jon were in matrimonial finance proceedings which is the money side of divorce proceedings. However, the law is such that if a spouse dies during that process, the claim abates meaning that it stops. My client lost her ability to obtain a final order or settlement from her long marriage which lasted some 18 years. The parties had formally divorced in 2019 and thus this meant she was left with a far inferior remedy of claim under the IA 1975.
The reason why the IA 1975 is inferior in this case is because it had been over a year since the divorce was finalised before the claim was started. But, it was over a year from when the parties divorced to when Jon died. This matters because under the IA 1975 there are two levels of provision. A higher more generous one exclusively for surviving spouses (which is closer to what is applied in matrimonial finance proceedings) and everyone else who is on the lower ‘maintenance’ provision. There is a time limit in the IA 1975 where a former spouse can be treated to the higher standard as if they were surviving spouse but my client could not qualify because it had been over a year since the decree absolute (aka a final order): see section 14 of the IA 1975.
As is common in matrimonial finance proceedings, there had been allegations by my client that Jon had not been candid or frank about his assets and there had been failures of disclosure on his part. Indeed, the FDR had been lost because of these failures and Jon died before the adjourned FDR could be heard again.
This ultimately left my client in an unjust and unattractive position where she could no longer receive a settlement or final order in the family court but had recourse under the IA 1975 which limited her to a lower standard meaning she walked away with less money.
But ultimately she did win and there was a nice little recognition in the judgment of what Hulya knew all along, Jon had not been entirely candid about his finances in the matrimonial finance proceedings:
‘61. Subsequent to the divorce the Claimant sought a financial settlement, but those proceedings were ongoing at the time of the Deceased’s death. The Claimant argues that the proceedings would have concluded but for the non-disclosure by the Deceased. The inadequacy of the Deceased’s disclosure in those proceedings was borne out by the evidence in this case, not least the First Defendant’s clear evidence that he sold (in his capacity as administrator) a car belonging to the Deceased (the Humber Super Snipe) which the Deceased had not disclosed in his financial statement for the matrimonial proceedings.‘
I am going to be writing an article about this case for 3PB Barristers over the next few weeks which will be targets at other lawyers but I will also be doing more articles on this website for non-lawyers. It is rare for Inheritance Act 1975 claims to go to trial as the vast majority of them settle. This is a rare case and I have a lot to say about it!
The judgment should be available on the National Archives website shortly but here is the official pdf of it given that judgment was handed down today:
Congratulations Hulya!
