Moller v Allen

The case of Moller v Allen involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Moller, and the defendant, Allen, over the estate of their deceased mother. Moller, the adult daughter, sought additional financial provision under the Family Provision Act, claiming she had not been left with adequate means for her maintenance. Allen, another child, contested this claim, arguing that the estate was insufficient to meet any order for provision and that the testamentary provisions made were equal for both siblings. The dispute also encompassed the question of whether the estate was adequate to cover both claims and whether certain advances made by the deceased to Allen during her lifetime constituted prescribed transactions that should be considered in the division of the estate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Moller had been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance under the Family Provision Act. This required the court to assess Moller's financial and material circumstances, her asserted needs, and the competing claim by Allen. The court also needed to determine whether the advances made by the deceased to Allen during her lifetime qualified as prescribed transactions, which would affect the estate's available assets for making any provision for Moller. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether an order for provision should be made out of the notional estate of the deceased, which included these prescribed transactions.

The court found that Moller had not been left with adequate provision for her proper maintenance, considering her financial circumstances and needs. However, the estate was insufficient to meet both Moller's claim and Allen's competing claim. The court held that the advances made by the deceased to Allen did not constitute prescribed transactions as defined by the Family Provision Act. Consequently, the court ruled that no order for provision should be made out of the notional estate of the deceased. The decision acknowledged the challenges in balancing the needs of both children against the limited estate but concluded that neither could be fully provided for under the circumstances.

The court ordered that no provision should be made for either Moller or Allen out of the estate, reflecting the insufficiency of the estate to meet both claims. The decision emphasised the difficult position faced by the court in equitable distribution of an estate that did not meet the needs of both claimants.