This article will cover an overview of the case of Ramus v Holt & Ors [2022] EWHC 2309 (Ch), which concerned a claim by a surviving spouse under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The case is a useful example of when provision for a spouse via a trust may still amount to reasonable financial provision.
Background – The 1975 Act
A person is generally free to leave their estate as they wish. This is known as testamentary freedom. However, that freedom is subject to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The 1975 Act allows certain people to bring a claim against an estate if the will, or the intestacy rules, do not make reasonable financial provision for them.
A surviving spouse is treated more generously than most other applicants. Unlike many other categories of claimant, a spouse’s claim is not limited to maintenance. The court will consider what financial provision is reasonable in all the circumstances.
Ramus v Holt – Facts
Christopher Ramus died in June 2020. He was survived by his widow, Elizabeth Ramus. They had been married for around 48 years, although by 2019 Mrs Ramus had decided to end the marriage. Mr Ramus died in June 2020 whilst they were preparing to divorce.
Under Mr Ramus’ will and codicils, Mrs Ramus received his personal chattels and a life interest in the residuary estate. The trustees also had power to advance capital to her.
The trust was flexible. It gave the trustees wide powers, including the ability to bring Mrs Ramus’ life interest to an end and exclude her from future benefit. Subject to the life interest, the trust fund was held on a discretionary basis for Mr Ramus’s children and remoter issue and Mrs Ramus (subject to the trustees’ power to exclude her from benefit).
One of the trustees was Mr Ramus’ daughter, Mrs Holt. She was also a potential beneficiary of the trust. Mrs Ramus had a strained relationship with Mrs Holt and was concerned that the trustees may not act in her favour.
Mr Ramus also made a letter of wishes. This stated that Mrs Ramus should receive income from the trust if this was needed to prevent hardship and maintain her lifestyle. However, if her own resources were sufficient, the trustees were asked to consider limiting or ending her income entitlement.
The letter of wishes also stated that Mr Ramus did not want Mrs Ramus to receive capital if this was unnecessary. His wish was to preserve the fund for future generations.
The estate was worth approximately £1.08 million. Mrs Ramus had substantial assets in her own name, worth approximately £1.66 million.
Mrs Ramus brought a claim under the 1975 Act. Her claim was not only that she had been left without reasonable provision and also argued that the structure of the will left her financially dependent on trustees whom she did not trust, particularly Mrs Holt.
Ramus v Holt – Decision
The High Court dismissed Mrs Ramus’ claim.
The court held that the will made reasonable financial provision for Mrs Ramus. The life interest, together with the trustees’ power to advance capital, was capable of being adequate provision in the circumstances.
A key factor was Mrs Ramus’ own financial position. Her personal assets exceeded the value of the estate. Although her expenditure was greater than her regular income, she had enough capital of her own to meet her needs.
The court also rejected the argument that the provision was unreasonable because of the identity of the trustees. Mrs Holt could not act alone. The other trustees were experienced and independent. The court was not satisfied that they would simply follow Mrs Holt’s wishes or act improperly.
The judge also made clear that the 1975 Act could not be used as a route to remove or replace trustees. Trustee removal is governed by separate principles and procedures.
Comment
Ramus v Holt confirms that a spouse’s claim under the 1975 Act will not automatically succeed simply because the spouse receives trust-based provision rather than an outright gift.
The case draws an important distinction between financial provision and trust administration. Mrs Ramus’ main concern was that she did not trust one of the trustees. The court did not accept that reasonable financial provision becomes unreasonable simply because of who the trustees are.
The claimant’s own resources were also central to the decision. Mrs Ramus had significant assets of her own and the court found that she could meet her needs without further provision from the estate.
From a will drafting perspective, the case supports the use of life interest trusts or flexible trust structures where the aim is to balance provision for a spouse with preserving assets for children or grandchildren.
However, the case also highlights the importance of careful trustee selection. This is particularly important where family relationships are strained, or where one trustee is also a beneficiary.
Conclusion
Ramus v Holt is a good example of the court upholding trust-based provision for a surviving spouse. The claim failed because the court was satisfied that the trust arrangements, viewed alongside Mrs Ramus’ own resources, amounted to reasonable financial provision.
As with all claims under the 1975 Act, the decision turned on the specific facts of the case. A different outcome may have been reached had Mrs Ramus’ resources been less substantial or had the trust provided less security.
Whilst concerns about a trustee did not succeed in this case, careful trustee appointments remain an important part of effective will drafting.
If you have subscribed to our Quiz Membership 2026, please find this article’s quiz here. You must be signed into the partner area of our website to access this.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Any advice, wording or clauses referred to are illustrative and should not be relied upon as precedent without full consideration of the client’s circumstances, the will as a whole, and the law in force at the relevant time.
