When the law treats a non-spouse as a spouse: what the Dinsdale case means for inheritance disputes 

Most inheritance disputes involve familiar questions. Was a Will valid? Has someone been unfairly excluded? Who should inherit an estate? 

The recent case of Dinsdale v Fowell & Ors raises a rather different issue. It asks what happens when someone believed they were married, lived as a spouse, cared for their partner through illness and bereavement, but later discovers that, in the eyes of the law, their marriage never existed at all. 

The case has attracted attention because it involves two marriages, a substantial estate and allegations of bigamy. However, the most interesting aspect of the dispute is not the unusual factual background. It is the way in which inheritance law responds when legal status and practical reality point in different directions. 

More specifically, it highlights an important distinction that is often overlooked: inheritance rights are not the same thing as inheritance claims. 

Two wives, one estate 

James Dinsdale married Dr Victoria Fowell in Las Vegas in 2012. Although the relationship later came to an end, the marriage itself was never legally dissolved. 

Several years later, Mr Dinsdale went through a second marriage ceremony in Las Vegas with Margaret Dinsdale. Margaret believed she was entering into a valid marriage and there appears to have been no suggestion that she knew Mr Dinsdale remained legally married to Dr Fowell. 

The difficulty was that English law does not permit a person to marry while a previous marriage remains in existence. The second marriage was therefore void from the outset. 

When Mr Dinsdale died in 2020 without leaving a Will, that distinction became critically important. 

Under the intestacy rules, only a lawful spouse is entitled to inherit as a surviving husband or wife. As a result, Margaret had no automatic entitlement to Mr Dinsdale’s estate despite having lived as his wife and having become financially dependent upon him. Instead, the estate fell to be distributed under the intestacy provisions, with Dr Fowell and Mr Dinsdale’s adult son being entitled. 

For Margaret, the consequences were significant. During the relationship she had given up work and had cared for Mr Dinsdale throughout his illness. Despite this, she found herself without the legal status that would ordinarily provide protection after a spouse’s death if they died intestate without a will. 

When inheritance rights and inheritance claims diverge 

The most interesting aspect of the case is what happened next. 

Ordinarily, legal status carries considerable weight in inheritance disputes. A spouse benefits from specific protections under both the intestacy rules and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Someone who is not a spouse generally starts from a very different position. 

Margaret’s circumstances sat uncomfortably between those categories. Although she had lived as Mr Dinsdale’s wife, the law did not recognise her as his spouse because the marriage itself was void. 

That distinction prevented her from inheriting automatically under the intestacy rules. Yet it did not necessarily prevent her from seeking financial provision from the estate. 

The 1975 Act contains provisions that allow certain parties to a void marriage to pursue claims that would otherwise be associated with a surviving spouse. Section 25(4) permits a person who entered into a void marriage with the deceased in good faith to be treated as a spouse for the purposes of a claim under the Act. The legislative rationale is clear: a marriage that is legally defective may nevertheless create the same financial expectations, dependencies and vulnerabilities as a valid one. In practical terms, two people may organise their finances, their working lives and their domestic arrangements in exactly the same way whether a marriage is legally valid or not. 

This creates an unusual legal position. Margaret could not rely upon the automatic rights available to a lawful spouse. Instead, she was required to bring a claim and persuade the court that reasonable financial provision should be made for her from the estate. 

The distinction is important. Inheritance rights arise automatically. Inheritance claims do not. A claimant must establish their case, provide evidence of their financial circumstances and persuade the court to exercise its discretion in their favour. 

Why the preliminary decision matters 

In a preliminary hearing before Master Brightwell, it was accepted that Margaret should be treated as a spouse for the purposes of bringing a claim under the 1975 Act. 

The court also awarded her an interim payment of £50,000 to assist with household expenses and legal costs while the litigation continues. 

The decision does not determine how the estate will ultimately be divided. That question remains for a future hearing. However, the ruling is significant because it confirms that, in this context, a claimant to a void marriage may nevertheless qualify to pursue relief as a spouse under the 1975 Act. 

What the full hearing will need to grapple with is considerably more complex. A claimant treated as a spouse under the 1975 Act is entitled to seek provision assessed not merely by reference to maintenance needs, but by the broader standard of what is reasonable in all the circumstances. The court will need to weigh Margaret’s financial resources and needs against those of Dr Fowell as the legal widow entitled under the intestacy rules, the adult son, and the size and character of the estate itself. The interim award reflects the court’s recognition that financial dependency cannot simply be suspended while litigation proceeds, but it does not predetermine where that balance will ultimately be struck. 

The decision is also a reminder that there is a substantial difference between being entitled to inherit and having to ask the court for provision. 

Had Margaret been recognised as a lawful spouse, she would have inherited automatically under the intestacy rules. Instead, she found herself having to pursue litigation at a time when she was grieving, financially dependent and facing uncertainty about her future. 

That distinction is more than a technical legal point. The law may ultimately provide a remedy, but obtaining that remedy can involve lengthy litigation, substantial costs and considerable emotional strain. A successful claim is never guaranteed. 

What does this mean for modern families? 

The circumstances of Dinsdale are unusual, but the underlying issues are not. 

Modern family structures are increasingly complex. Long-term separations, second relationships, blended families and outdated Wills frequently create situations where legal status and personal reality do not align as neatly as people assume. 

Many people separate from a spouse, move on with their lives and form new relationships without fully appreciating the continuing legal significance of the marriage that came before. Others assume that a long-term partner will automatically be protected after their death because everyone understands their wishes. Some simply never revisit their estate planning after major changes in their personal circumstances. 

The Dinsdale case demonstrates the risks of those assumptions. 

It also highlights the limitations of the intestacy rules. Those rules are designed to create certainty rather than flexibility. They distribute estates according to a fixed statutory framework and cannot take account of the nuances of individual relationships or family circumstances. 

Where the outcome produced by those rules appears unfair, a claim under the 1975 Act may offer a remedy. However, such claims should be viewed as a safety net rather than a substitute for proper estate planning. 

Why making a Will still matters 

Perhaps the most striking feature of the case is that much of the uncertainty arose because Mr Dinsdale died without a Will. 

A properly drafted Will would not have altered the legal validity of the second marriage. However, it could have made direct provision for Margaret and significantly reduced the importance of the legal questions that have since arisen. 

This is particularly important for anyone with a complex family structure, a second relationship or financial arrangements that may not fit neatly within the intestacy rules. It is also worth remembering that marriage can revoke an earlier Will entirely, meaning that a document made before a significant change in personal circumstances may no longer operate as intended. Any major life event should prompt a review. 

Inheritance Act claims play an important role in protecting vulnerable individuals and correcting genuinely unfair outcomes. However, they are rarely an ideal route to financial security. They are often expensive, time-consuming and emotionally demanding for everyone involved. 

The best inheritance disputes are usually the ones that never arise. 

A case about more than bigamy 

The headlines surrounding Dinsdale have understandably focused on the existence of two wives. Legally, however, the more interesting issue is how the law responds when somebody has all the practical characteristics of a spouse but none of the legal status. 

The case demonstrates that inheritance law is capable of recognising those realities in certain circumstances. At the same time, it highlights the limits of that protection. 

Margaret’s route to financial security was not automatic inheritance but contested litigation. The distinction is significant. One reflects certainty. The other depends upon evidence, judicial discretion and the willingness to bring a claim. 

For families, that serves as a powerful reminder that the best time to resolve questions about inheritance is usually during life, not after death. 

If you have concerns about inheritance rights, intestacy, estate planning or a potential claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Coodes’ personal disputes team can help you understand your options and protect your position. 

About the Author: Hayley Gaffney is a Partner at Coodes, specialising in contentious trusts and probate. She is a Full Member of the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS) and has been recognised by the Legal 500 as a Key Lawyer and by Chambers & Partners High Net Worth Guide as an Associate to Watch in the field of contentious trusts and probate. 

Get in touch: hayley.gaffney@coodes.co.uk   01637 870738