Elena Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation Limited & Anor

Elena Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation Limited & Anor

The Will did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant, given her needs, the long marriage, her lack of resources, and the objective standard required by the 1975 Act. The appropriate provision is the transfer of the matrimonial home mortgage-free and a lump sum of £1,864,089 to meet capital and income needs, with further provision (40% of the net estate) if the estate exceeds £7,160,222. The claimant and her son take priority over other beneficiaries. The conduct of the 2nd Defendant justified an indemnity costs order against her share.

Parties
Claimant: Elena Klein; 1st Defendant: Cripps Trust Corporation Limited; 2nd Defendant: Cydlia Zara Adler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Succession/probate (inheritance Act Claim) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; reasonable financial provision ordered for claimant.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Financial Provision for Spouse, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Estate Administration, Pre Nuptial Agreements, Divorce Cross Check, Executor Removal, Costs Orders
Succession Law Family Law Reasonable Financial Provision for Spouse Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Estate Administration Pre Nuptial Agreements Divorce Cross Check Executor Removal +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elena Klein

Claimant

Cripps Trust Corporation Limited

1st Defendant

Cydlia Zara Adler

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Succession/probate (inheritance Act Claim) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Will of Alexander Klein made reasonable financial provision for his widow under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum and structure of provision for the claimant
  3. 3 Impact of pre-nuptial agreements and divorce cross-check on provision

Ratio Decidendi

The Will did not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant, given her needs, the long marriage, her lack of resources, and the objective standard required by the 1975 Act. The appropriate provision is the transfer of the matrimonial home mortgage-free and a lump sum of £1,864,089 to meet capital and income needs, with further provision (40% of the net estate) if the estate exceeds £7,160,222. The claimant and her son take priority over other beneficiaries. The conduct of the 2nd Defendant justified an indemnity costs order against her share.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; reasonable financial provision ordered for claimant.

Orders

  • Transfer of the former matrimonial home to the claimant mortgage-free (value £1 million)
  • Payment of a lump sum of £1,864,089 to the claimant, payable in instalments, to meet capital and income needs (including for her son Elliot)