Private Wealth and Succession Planning

Rekha Toor
October 2025

This was an interesting case which attracted a lot of media attention. Whilst it was not an unusual case, many called the actions of the deceased an injustice which required the court to put right.

Background

Mr Karnail Singh (the “Deceased”) died on 21st August 2021. He made a will dated 25th June 2005 in which he left his entire estate to two of his 6 surviving children, both were sons.

The Deceased made no provisions for his four daughters nor his wife. The Deceased’s intention was to leave his estate to the “male line” of his family.

The Deceased married his wife Harbans Kaur in 1955, a long marriage spanning 66 years, they had 7 children together although only six survived the Deceased.

The Deceased and his wife both worked in the family clothing business although she did not have a direct stake within it and nor did she receive a salary. She remained fully dependent on the Deceased, and he met all her financial needs throughout their long marriage.

Given that the Deceased left no provision in his will for his wife, she issued a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependant’s) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”), seeking an order that she should receive half of the estate, whatever the value may be. She made it clear that her intention was to be able to purchase a property for herself which was close to her daughter, and she was unable to do this given her only income was £12,000pa from state benefits and she had very modest assets.

Judgement

Mr Justice Peel found that the Deceased’s estate did not provide reasonable financial provision for the claimant and as such she was awarded 50% of the net value of the Deceased’s estate, she would also receive £20,000 forthwith on account of the final distribution due to her.

Further, the claimant’s costs were to be paid out of the gross value of the estate before any distribution was made to her, therefore her costs were treated as an administration expense.

Mr Justice Peel commented that:

“It is hard to see how any other conclusion can be reached. After a marriage of 66 years, to which she made a full and equal contribution, and during which all the assets accrued, she is left with next to nothing.”

It is worth noting that in this case there was discussion over what the value of the estate was. The claimant’s claim was 50% of the estate and this is what was awarded. The court did not specify exactly what the amount was as it was clear that even at the lower end of the values, it would still be sufficient to provide for the claimant.

Conclusion

The judgement did not necessarily come as surprise to many practitioners, however the key takeaway from this case must be that whilst testators do enjoy the freedom to leave their estate as they wish, the courts are looking at cases with the view to stand against injustice and equality.