Re Besterman’s WT (unreported), as cited in McGovern v AG [1982] Ch 321, 352-3

"Reasonable financial provision" refers to the obligation to provide adequate financial support to certain individuals after a person's death, primarily governed by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. This law allows spouses, children, and dependents to seek financial support from the deceased's estate. 

When assessing a lump sum payment for financial provision, courts consider several factors, including the claimant's financial needs, the deceased's estate, the standard of living before death, and the claimant's existing resources. 

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 allows certain individuals, such as spouses and dependents, to claim financial support from a deceased person's estate if adequate provision has not been made. Sections 1(2)(a) identify eligible claimants, while Sections 3(5) and 3(6) outline the criteria for determining reasonable financial provision, focusing on the claimant’s needs and the estate's resources.

Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 allows courts to make financial orders during divorce proceedings, ensuring equitable arrangements between spouses. The court considers factors such as the needs and resources of both parties, the standard of living during the marriage, and each party's contributions. 

Marie-Louise Besterman ("Plaintiff") married Theodore Deodatus Nathaniel Besterman (Deceased) ("Testator") on 29 December 1958 when she was 42 years old and he was 54. They initially resided in Switzerland before relocating to England, where the Deceased passed away on 10 November 1976.

The Deceased was a wealthy individual, and during their marriage, the Plaintiff enjoyed a high standard of living despite having minimal personal financial resources.

The Deceased's Will, dated 29 July 1973, provided the Plaintiff with ordinary domestic and personal chattels. £100,000 nominal War Stock for her lifetime, generating an annual income of approximately £3,500. The use of certain works of art for her lifetime. Bequests to institutions, including Oxford University, and a residuary bequest to the university held in trust for specific research purposes.

An interim order issued on 21 July 1980 stipulated a capital sum of £75,000 to be paid to the Plaintiff. An annual income of £11,500 for the Plaintiff £3,500 per annum for the upkeep of the marital home, valued at £350,000, until its sale.

The Plaintiff also received a widow's pension of £400 per annum.

The Plaintiff utilized the capital sum to purchase a smaller house. Despite her modest annual expenditure of £15,000, this amount was significantly lower than the standard of living she had previously enjoyed and did not account for potential future contingencies.

The Plaintiff initiated a summons under Section 1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, arguing that the Deceased's will did not provide reasonable financial provisions for her. The judge determined that the will was insufficient to meet the Plaintiff's needs and ordered specific payments to be made to her.

The Plaintiff appealed the judge's decision regarding the financial provisions made in the Deceased's Will.

The court allowed the appeal and held that interpretation of Section 1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975: The court ruled that the primary criterion for reasonable provision for a surviving spouse was not limited to maintenance considerations, allowing broader judicial discretion.

The court highlighted the need to assess the Plaintiff’s resources, needs, and obligations as the Deceased's widow, the size of her estate, her age, and what she might have reasonably expected if the marriage had ended in divorce. The judge's previous award was inadequate, failing to account for future contingencies. Thus, reasonable provision required a sufficient sum to alleviate the plaintiff's future anxieties, necessitating an increase in the award.

Per Oliver L.J.: Each case should be evaluated based on its specific facts, and the present case should not serve as a precedent for general principles in different circumstances, regardless of estate size.

This case focuses on the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, emphasizing the importance of reasonable financial provisions for surviving spouses. Marie-Louise Besterman, after her wealthy husband Theodore's death, found the will's provisions inadequate for her long-term needs, prompting her appeal.

This decision sets a significant precedent, encouraging judges to consider a broader range of factors when determining financial provisions. It highlights the expectation that a surviving spouse's needs and lifestyle should be adequately addressed in wills, promoting fairness and reducing potential disputes. Overall, the ruling reinforces the idea that marriage should offer lasting financial security even after one partner's death.