Thirsk v Thirsk [2026] – new changes in spousal inheritance act claims

This case concerns a claim brought by the Deceased’s spouse under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”).

Background

The Deceased sadly passed away in April 2026, leaving a spouse (“Sarah”) and a son from a previous relationship (“Henry”). The Deceased and Sarah had been married for 1 year prior to his death but had been in a relationship for 19 years.

The Deceased left an estate worth approximately £26 million, primarily consisting of farming land.

In February 2022, the Deceased made a will (“the Will”) which gave Sarah a lump sum of £5 million and the right to continue to live in their marital home for the remainder of her life. Under the Will, the remainder (and bulk) of the estate was left to Henry.

Sarah brought a claim under the 1975 Act on the basis that the Will provided insufficient financial provision for her. This was particularly in light of the extravagant lifestyle Sarah and the Deceased shared, with Sarah claiming that the couple would spend in excess of £700,000 per year.

The Issues

The court addressed key issues in the claim as follows:

i.                The court found that the couple’s alleged spending was inflated by Sarah given the lack of evidence she was able to provide in support of her claims, noting that “she gave the impression of wanting to maximise the amount which the court could find would be a reasonable budget for her, without having given very much thought as to how she might usefully do that”.

ii.              Despite the Deceased and Sarah having only been married for 1 year, the court treated the 19-year cohabitation as part of the marital relationship when assessing Sarah’s financial needs from the estate.

iii.             A key factor of this case is that when applying the commonly applied divorce cross check the court drew a clear distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets. The former being assets within the estate that were acquired jointly between Sarah and the Deceased during the marriage, and the latter being those acquired solely by the Deceased prior to the marriage. Here, the majority of the Deceased’s estate consisted of farming land which was acquired before he met Sarah. There was also evidence to support the Deceased’s repeated expressions that such assets had been acquired specifically for Henry to inherit. As such, the court solely assessed the matrimonial assets when deciding what portion of the estate should be carved out for Sarah’s benefit.

iv.             In contrast to the typical approach adopted in many spousal 1975 Act claims, the court introduced a high bar when assessing the reasonable financial provision that should be provided for Sarah. The court emphasised that the purpose of any order in favour of a spouse is to provide enough to help a surviving spouse transition into independence as opposed to creating lifelong dependence post-death, which is more commonly the expectation in spousal claims under the Inheritance Act.

The Judgment

It was held that the Will did not make reasonable financial provision for Sarah. However, the award ordered was limited, taking into account the points above. Sarah was awarded a lump sum of £5 million plus an outright transfer of the marital home into her ownership. The remainder of the estate, including the farming land, passed to Henry in accordance with the Deceased’s wishes.

This award made was in fact on the same terms as a previous settlement offer made by Henry pre-trial, which had resulting consequences in relation to the parties’ costs.

Key Takeaways

This case marks a stark difference in the court’s approach to spousal 1975 Act claim,  drawing a distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, and setting a high bar for what should be considered to be reasonable financial provision. Whilst each case turns on its own facts, this case suggests there is a clear shift to giving consideration to how and when a spouse might be in a position to be financially independent as opposed to a lifetime award being made from the estate.

This case stresses the importance of documentary evidence reflecting the Deceased’s testamentary wishes and the weight that this will carry even when taking into account the needs of spouses.