Living in the same household

Gully v Dix; In re Dix, deceased CA TLR 28 January

The claimant had lived with the deceased for 27 years until some three months before his death when his continual drunkenness and antisocial behaviour had caused her to leave their home and live elsewhere. For the purposes of s1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, was she someone who, during the whole of the period of two years immediately before the date when the deceased died, lived in the same household as the deceased and as the wife of the deceased, and immediately before the death of the deceased had been maintained wholly or partly by the deceased? Did the claimant’s leaving and living apart from the deceased during the last three months of his life have the consequence that she could not show that they were living in the same household during the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the death, nor that immediately before his death she was maintained by him? ‘Yes’ said the trial judge, and the Court of Appeal agreed with him. The concept of parties living together in the same household is a familiar one in many areas of statutory law. Thus the claimant could still have been living with the deceased in the same household at the moment of his death even if they had been living separately at that moment in time. That would be the case if they were tied by their relationship, manifested by various elements, not simply their living under the same roof; the public and private acknowledgement of the mutual society, protection and support that bound them together. It was sufficient to ask whether either had demonstrated a settled acceptance or recognition that the relationship was in truth at an end. The claimant still entertained a hope, perhaps a vain one, that the deceased might modify his drinking so that it would be possible for her to return. A promise to change would have brought the claimant back, however unlikely others might have judged the prospects of the deceased keeping that promise. That would have been sufficient. Accordingly, the claimant’s claim for financial provision out of the estate succeeded.