The recent decision in Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] EWHC 688 (Fam) illustrates the broad discretion the court has under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, as well as the importance of conduct not only during the deceased’s lifetime but during the claim itself.

Mr Klein died in 2020, leaving a multi-million pound estate primarily made up of shares in property-holding companies of which the Second Defendant (his friend and business partner) was the other shareholder and now sole director. By his will his wife of 17 years received only £300,000, and their minor son a trust fund of £100,000. D2 by contrast received £200,000 plus 10% of the residue, with the other 90% of the residue being settled on charitable trust. The court’s task was complicated by a lack of certainty as to the value of the estate resulting from D2’s failure to provide necessary information.

The trial followed a series of related claims: C had successfully removed D2 as executor, D2 had unsuccessfully claimed that she was the sole beneficial owner of the shares in the estate, and the IA successfully applied under s125 of the Companies Act 2006 to be registered as shareholder.

The court ordered a minimum lump sum sufficient to meet C’s needs, as well as further payments to a total of not more than 40% of the net estate should its value once determined allow. In light of her conduct D2 was ordered to pay C’s costs of the claim on the indemnity basis and her entitlement under the will was to be first in line to be extinguished to meet the award to C.

Amy Proferes acted for Cripps Trust Corporation in its capacity as independent administrator and (at trial) as representative of the charitable interest under the deceased’s will, instructed by Cripps LLP: Dino Sikkel, Myles McIntosh, and Tom Bourne.