Louise Rose, born with serious physical and mental disabilities as a result of medical negligence at delivery, obtained £250,000 by way of settlement of her claim against the defendant health authority. This sum, administered by the Court of Protection, was used to enable her mother, Mrs. Bouette, to purchase a house in which they could both live. Its price was met as to three-quarters by the damages fund and as to one-quarter by her mother, and beneficial interests were declared in the property to represent their respective contributions. Mrs. Bouette received regular payments from the Court of Protection to cover Louise's living expenses and to purchase equipment for Louise, as well as social security benefits from the State in respect of her care for Louise. On Louise's death, at the age of fourteen, the rules of intestacy dictated that her estate, comprising her 75% share in the house and the residual fund, was to be divided in equal shares between her parents. Although Louise's father had separated from her mother when Louise was eight months old, he had an equal entitlement to the daughter's property, and realisation of his share would inevitably involve sale of the house. Mrs. Bouette accordingly brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, arguing that she was dependent on her daughter immediately before her death, and that she had not obtained reasonable financial provision as a result of the operation of the intestacy rules. The father applied to strike out the mother's claim, and the question of her dependency was tried as a preliminary issue: Bouette v. Rose, sub nom. Re B (deceased) [2000] 1 All E.R. 665.