The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Act) allows the court to alter the distribution of a deceased’s estate where it finds that reasonable financial provision was not made for a claimant under the deceased’s will (or under the rules of intestacy).
Only certain categories of claimant are eligible to bring a claim and the test of what is reasonable depends on the claimant’s relationship to the deceased. Children of the deceased are eligible to bring a claim under the Act and the court may make such financial provision for the claimant as is reasonable in the circumstances for their maintenance. The definition of maintenance is broad, flexible and fact-specific, not limited to a mere subsistence level.
The court takes into account various factors in relation to the both the claimant and the existing beneficiaries when deciding whether to exercise its powers and make provision: their financial needs and resources at the date of the trial and for the foreseeable future; the size and nature of the estate; the obligations and responsibilities of the deceased to them; any physical or mental disabilities; and any other matter which the court may consider relevant.
Two recent cases have considered how the Act applies in relation to adult children:
Isaacs v Green & Others [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)
This case involved three adult siblings with various financial and healthcare needs. The deceased had divided her residuary estate between her two daughters, Ruth and Susan, in her will but made no provision for her son, David. David brought a claim under the Act, seeking one-third of the estate, but his claim was opposed by Susan.
David had been provided for in a previous will but financial concerns relating to his divorce meant that he was excluded from his mother’s later will. However, his relationship with his mother had improved since this point.
The court decided to award David 25% of the estate, with the remainder shared equally between Ruth and Susan. The financial and healthcare needs of the three siblings were central to the court’s decision as they were all in their seventies, unable to earn a living, and both David and Susan had significant healthcare needs.
An interesting point in this case was the consideration of David’s expenses which were modest other than £450 spent per month on commemorative coins and stamps. The court determined that this did not detract from his case as he did not have other hobbies and was only able to spend this amount due to great frugality in other areas of his life. The judge held that the meaning of maintenance was not so narrow that David should be expected to forgo his interests entirely.
McDaniel v Talbot [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch)
In this case, the claimant, Emma, was the adult daughter of the deceased and had been estranged from the deceased by his choice since she was a baby. She had not been included in his 2014 will and the will specifically contained a non-provision declaration in relation to Emma and her brother as, at this point, the deceased did not have contact with either of them.
From 2019 until the deceased’s death in 2022, however, Emma and the deceased rebuilt a close father-daughter relationship and at one point had considered the possibility of Emma moving into the deceased’s home. Before the deceased’s death, Emma had helped to care for both him and his mother (who she had contact with prior to 2019 in any case) in addition to the caring responsibilities she already had in relation to her own children who had severe disabilities. Emma also suffered from a range of health conditions herself and was living in financially constrained circumstances.
The court ordered that Emma should be paid £123,418.47 which represented approximately 8.2% of the deceased’s net estate. The court found that Emma’s caring contributions were a special circumstance which tipped the balance in her favour given she was an adult child with earning capacity.
As to the non-provision declaration, the court said that the reasons expressed in that declaration had entirely reversed given that there was a caring father-daughter relationship prior to the deceased’s death.
Takeaways
Both of these cases show the complexities involved in adult child claims under the Act and demonstrate how the courts seek to balance the testator’s intentions with the needs of claimants and beneficiaries.
In the case of a claim by an adult child, it is crucial to establish “something more” than financial need and a parent-child relationship. In the case of Isaacs, it was that David had a genuine financial need and the relationship between him and the deceased had improved so that there was no estrangement at the time of her death, whereas in McDaniel, Emma’s caring contributions persuaded the court that her claim should succeed, despite her ongoing capacity to earn.
The definition of maintenance can be flexible and will depend on the claimant’s needs as evidenced in Isaacs in relation to David’s coin collecting. In McDaniel, part of the award was made in order to pay off Emma’s non-student loan debts to “reset the dial” so that Emma could run her finances within her means.
In Isaacs, the court did not take into account David or Susan’s potential liability for costs in considering David’s financial needs. This follows previous judgments which highlight that costs should be dealt with separately under the Civil Procedure Rules and should not be included in any substantive award under the Act.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Clifford Woodroffe or George Gibbon.