Thompson v Ragget and others [2018] EWHC 688 - Goodman Ray

Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Supporting our clients through challenging times

We wanted to reassure you that we are taking all the required precautions and necessary reasonable steps to maintain our usual level of service.

The well-being of our people, clients and the wider community is paramount to us whilst we continue to focus on our clients and their needs.

Our IT infrastructure allows our staff to work effectively and efficiently from home when needed so that we remain operational and our service seamless.

Please continue to contact us by telephone or email.

Tel: 020 7608 1227 & Email:

If you would prefer a face to face discussion, we are able to arrange meetings by video.
We have access to a range of video conferencing options, including Skype, Zoom and Facetime.

We are following government advice to minimise social contact, and that includes avoiding all but essential meetings.

During this time service will only be accepted by email.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): Supporting our clients through challenging times. Find out more, click here.

If a cohabiting couple do not make wills and one passes away, the survivor has no statutory right to inherit under the intestacy rules. However, a surviving cohabitee may use the courts to claim for financial provision where they have cohabited for two years, or where they were a dependent immediately before the deceased’s death.

In Thompson v Ragget the claimant claimed reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 out of the estate of her late partner, who had left her nothing. HHJ Jarman QC considered it would be reasonable to provide the couple’s home, which had been bought in 2016 for the couple to live in. In deciding whether the cottage should be transferred outright or a life interest granted the Judge emphasised that the statutory power is to provide maintenance, not to confer capital.

HHJ Jarman QC noted, however that all cases are dependant on their facts taking into account all factors. In this case because of the 42 year period of cohabitation it was reasonable to convey the cottage (in which the defendants had no interest) to the claimant whilst noting: ‘such an approach is likely to facilitate all concerned moving on from this litigation’, and to do so would allow the claimant to ‘take decisions relating to her home, such as making structural alterations or raising money without the need to seek permission’.

This case gives some assurance to cohabitees that the courts will decide each case on its facts, and the award of a capital sum rather than a life interest is still possible where appropriate. Key points that influenced the judgment in this case included the length of cohabitation, the claimant’s financial dependency on the deceased, and the fact that conveying the property to the claimant outright would do away with the need for her to ask permission to make renovations or to raise capital.

© 2020 Goodman Ray | Legal & Terms | Goodman Ray Privacy Policy | Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority: 60514