Financial Remedies Case Law Update
February 2026

Parties 

1. The Claimant is Ms Hulya Kars, who is the former spouse of the deceased Jon Lamb.

2. The First Defendant is Mr Lewis John Brown, the son of the Deceased Jon Lamb. He is a beneficiary of the Deceased’s Estate under the intestacy rules and the administrator of said estate. The Second Defendant is Mr Martin Paul Lamb, the son of the Deceased and a beneficiary of the Estate. The First and Second Defendants contest the claim. 

3. The Third Defendant is Mr William Kerem Lamb, the son of both the claimant and the Deceased and a beneficiary of the Estate. The Fourth Defendant is the estate of the Deceased’s adoptive daughter Ms Jane Byrne who is also deceased and a beneficiary of the estate. The Third and Fourth Defendants played no active part in the proceedings.

Background 

4. The Claimant and the Deceased were married on 8 June 2000 and the Claimant petitioned for divorce in January 2019 with the decree absolute being pronounced on 13 May 2019. There were matrimonial finance proceedings ongoing between these two parties at the date of Mr Jon Lamb’s death and there had been no final order made. 

5. The Estate is largely formed by the freehold property at 47 Princes Street, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1QA (“the Property”). The net value of the Estate was recorded as £331,122 and the valuation of the Property was £240,000 as according to the First Defendant. 

6. A dispute as to who holds the beneficial interest in the Property arose and possession proceedings, which are currently stayed pending determination in these proceedings, were instigated. The Claimant argues that she is the beneficial owner whilst the First and Second Defendants claim that title belonged to the Deceased. Whilst it was suggested that by counsel for the First and Second Defendants that this application in regard to beneficial interest was an abuse of process, this argument was dismissed by the Court. 

Beneficial ownership of 47 Princes Street

Issue 

7. The Court considered it necessary to determine the issue of beneficial ownership as it was fundamental to establishing the composition of the net Estate from which financial provision may be ordered.

8. The Claimant, through counsel, made submissions that:

(i) “The Claimant is the legal owner, and the beneficial ownership is presumed to follow the legal title; the burden is on the Defendants to rebut that presumption and they have not done so.

(ii) Where a husband provides all monies in relation to the acquisition of a property, the legal title to which is put in his wife's name, the presumption of advancement (i.e. that it is a gift) applies subject to any rebuttal evidence to indicate otherwise (Gascoigne v Gascoigne [1918] 1 K.B. 223).

(iii) the rule in Re Bishop [1965] Ch 450 that when spouses hold a joint bank account, the surviving spouse is entitled to the balance of the account on death, regardless of unequal contributions, but property purchased in the sole name of one spouse from that account belongs only to that spouse.”

9. The First and Second Defendants made no legal argument but relied on the submission that the Claimant had never lived at the Property and had instead been living in Manchester. 

10. The Court further relied on the case of Stack v Dowden 2007 UKHL 17 stating that “Baroness Hale's leading judgment is nevertheless instructive as to the approach to take in relation to sole ownership. At [56] Baroness Hale stated: "Just as the starting point where there is sole legal ownership is sole beneficial ownership, the starting point where there is joint legal ownership is joint beneficial ownership. The onus is upon the person seeking to show that the beneficial ownership is different from the legal ownership. So, in sole ownership cases it is upon the non-owner to show that he has any interest at all." Her Ladyship went on to state at [60]: "The search is to ascertain the parties' shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it."”

Decision 

11. Having considered the evidence and taking a holistic approach to the conduct of each party, the Court found that the shared intention of the Deceased, who provided over 85% of the purchase monies for the property, and the Claimant, who is the sole legal owner of the property, was for the beneficial ownership to be shared between them.

12. As such, the Court decided that the Deceased and Claimant shared the beneficial ownership and the Claimant was therefore entitled to 50% of the beneficial ownership of 47 Princes Street. The remaining 50% falls within the Estate.

Inheritance Act Claim 

13. The Court was then able to go on to consider the primary issue of the Inheritance Act claim. 

14. The Court summarised the law as follows:

“Section 2 of the 1975 Act provides for the court to make one or more of the orders specified therein if it is satisfied that the disposition of a deceased's estate is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for an applicant.

It is agreed that the two overarching questions for the court in a 1975 Act claim where there is an intestacy are: (1) whether the way in which the estate is disposed of under the intestacy rules fails to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant ('threshold question'); and (2) if reasonable financial provision has not been made, whether any, and if so what, provision should be made for the claimant ('the provision question') (see Oliver J in Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461 at 469).”

15. In particular the Court was required to have regard to the factors found in Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Inheritance Act and considered each factor in turn. 

S3(1)(a) the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future

16. In regard to this factor, the Court found that the Claimant:

a. had equity of approximately £120,000 in the Property

b. had employment as a waitress and earning potential, though the hours which she could work were limited by her uncontested health conditions 

c. was increasingly unlikely to find work linked to her studies

d. had no private savings and uncontested debts including her student loan

e. was living with her brother and this arrangement was likely to come to an end shortly with her having no alternative accommodation

f. had no undisclosed Turkish assets as alleged by the First and Second Defendants.

s3(1)(d) any obligations and responsibilities which the Deceased had towards any applicant for an order under the said section 2 or towards any beneficiary of the estate of the Deceased

17. The Claimant and Deceased lived together until 2008 when the Claimant moved to Manchester with their son William, who is diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, in order to complete her degree which was done in 2013. The Claimant continued living in Manchester following this in order to complete her master’s degree and because William had settled in his SEND provision. 

18. The Court was presented documentary evidence as to the state of the relationship between the Claimant and Deceased however found none of it compelling. The Court did however prefer the Claimant’s account and found that the relationship continued in some form up until late 2016. 

19. Further, the Court found that following her move to Manchester, the Claimant continued to be financially supported by the Deceased to some extent however still supported herself and William through her own student loan, benefits, and part-time work. The Claimant was not completely reliant on the Deceased, nor was the Claimant independently wealthy.

s3(1)(e) the size and nature of the net estate

20. Subject to the Claimant’s claim, the Estate will be divided equally between the four Defendants under the laws of intestacy. 

21. The Court further found that the financial statement of the First Defendant gave the net value of the Estate, including the Property, as £297,155.97. The First Defendant provided a valuation of the Property as £240,000, half of which is £120,000. Accordingly, the net value of the Estate excluding the Claimant's share of the Property is around £177,155.97.

s3(1)(f) Any physical or mental disability of an applicant

22. The Claimant submitted the above illnesses which restricted her earning potential.

s3(1)(g) Any other matter... which ... the Court may find relevant

23. The Court considered it relevant that the Claimant found herself in the unfortunate position of the Deceased having died prior to the conclusion of the matrimonial proceedings and thus having no final order or settlement in those proceedings.

s3(2)(a) the age of the applicant and the duration of the marriage

24. The Claimant is 50 years old; she was married to the Deceased for 18 years.

s3(2)(b) the contribution made by the applicant to the welfare of the family of the Deceased, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family

25. The Claimant was the primary carer for William throughout his childhood and still provides him with support given his medical needs.

Threshold Question

26. The Court concluded following this analysis that the law of intestacy did not make reasonable provision for the Claimant and that reasonable provision for the Claimant’s maintenance would have amounted to securing her housing needs.

Provision Question

27. As such, the Court exercised its discretion under section 2 of the Inheritance Act in deciding that the appropriate way to secure these housing needs is to order the remaining shares of the Property to be transferred from the Estate to the Claimant.