Vigolo v Bostin

The case of Vigolo v Bostin involved a dispute between a testator's family members regarding the distribution of the estate. The appellant, one of five children of the deceased, sought a portion of the estate under the provisions of the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provisions) Act 1972. The appellant had been involved in a business association with the testator during the testator's life and had profited from this relationship. Despite this, the appellant was excluded from receiving any benefits under the will. The appellant argued that the testator should have made provisions for him, despite his financial security at the time of the testator's death.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had been left without adequate provision for and whether the deceased ought to have made such provision for him. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and whether the appellant met the criteria for making a claim under the Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the appellant's financial status at the time of the testator's death impacted his entitlement to a claim under the Act.

The court held that the appellant had not been left without adequate provision for, as he was financially secure at the time of the testator's death. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that he required financial support from the deceased or that the deceased should have made provision for him. The court relied on the statutory provisions of the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provisions) Act 1972, section 6, which sets out the criteria for making a claim. The court determined that the appellant did not meet these criteria and dismissed the appellant's claim. The court emphasised that the Act is not intended to override the testator's wishes as expressed in the will, and that the appellant's business relationship with the testator did not entitle him to a share of the estate.

The court ordered that the appellant's claim be dismissed, and that the estate be distributed according to the terms of the will. The court's decision reinforces the principle that the Act is not intended to provide a safety net for those who have been financially independent during the testator's life, and that the testator's wishes as expressed in the will should be respected.