The case of Ubbi and Anor v Ubbi  EWHC 1396 (Ch), is a claim brought on behalf of the illegitimate children of Mr. Malkait Singh Ubbi, (“the deceased”), seeking financial provision from his estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The deceased was married to Mrs. Susan Ubbi, at the time of his death in February 2015. Divorce proceedings were ongoing, but not finalised. There were two children of the marriage, one of which born in 1994 suffered from a number of disabilities.
The deceased made a will in 2010, leaving the entirety of the estate to his wife. At the time of his death, his estate was valued at approximately £3.4.million.
In 2007, the deceased had met Bianca Corrado, and had begun an affair with her. They had subsequently had two children together born in 2012 and 2014.
At the time of his death, the deceased had not taken the step of updating his will, and accordingly, no provision was made for the illegitimate children.
The legal position
Under the Inheritance Act, reasonable financial provision for a child refers to finances that would be reasonable for the claimant to receive for their “maintenance”, with this very much depending on the particular circumstances of each case. In addition, when considering cases of children of the deceased, the court will take account of how the applicant was being, or might expect to be educated or trained.
The parties’ positions
The illegitimate children sought a lump sum of £848,105.78 from their father’s estate.
The defendant accepted that the claimants were entitled to reasonable financial provision and that the financial provision should be by way of a lump sum. They accepted the claimants’ methodology of adopting the multiplier set out in Ogden table 28 for calculating the lump sum that would cover costs of raising each of the children to 18. However, this would be subject to factoring in their mother’s own income over that period to reduce the liability on the estate. The main issue of the case focused upon the amount of the potential lump sum, with the main points in dispute arising in relation to housing needs, childcare and private schooling.
The defendant’s case was that the illegitimate children should not receive anything from the estate. In addition, there were other parties with competing needs, namely the deceased wife and her two adult children. One of whom lived at home, having suffered a horrific attack some years prior, and the other who suffers from hemiplegia, paralysis to one side of the body, and learning difficulties.