Baynes v Hedger & Anor

Baynes v Hedger & Anor

The appellant was not entitled to make a claim under s.1(1)(e) of the Act because the deceased did not assume responsibility for her maintenance; any payments were limited, repayable, or made under pressure, and there was no settled arrangement or ongoing assumption of responsibility.

Parties
Appellant: Henrietta Baynes; Respondent: Hedger; Respondent: Landmark Trust; Respondent: Margaret Baynes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Inheritance Provision for Dependants, Assumption of Responsibility, Reasonable Financial Provision, Testamentary Disposition
Succession Law Family Law Inheritance Provision for Dependants Assumption of Responsibility Reasonable Financial Provision Testamentary Disposition

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henrietta Baynes

Appellant

Hedger

Respondent

Landmark Trust

Respondent

Margaret Baynes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was being maintained by the deceased immediately before death within s.1(1)(e) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the appellant
  3. 3 Whether any order should be made for provision out of the estate

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not entitled to make a claim under s.1(1)(e) of the Act because the deceased did not assume responsibility for her maintenance; any payments were limited, repayable, or made under pressure, and there was no settled arrangement or ongoing assumption of responsibility.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed