Inheritance Act claims: key case law developments from 2025–2026

Recent decisions on claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 offer useful guidance for anyone considering whether a will or intestacy has failed to make reasonable financial provision. For more information about claims under the Act, see our FAQ guide.

The cases and commentary emerging from 2025 and 2026 highlight several recurring themes:

• Claims by adult children remain viable in the right circumstances, and estrangement and conduct aren’t always decisive
• Late claims continue to face real procedural difficulty. Timing still matters. The court may intervene where a will or intestacy doesn’t make reasonable financial provision, but delay can be fatal, especially once an estate has been distributed
• Spouses remain in a distinct category when the court assesses provision.

Adult child claims can still succeed

One of the clearest themes from 2025 and 2026 is the court’s continued willingness to make awards in favour of adult children, but only where the evidence supports it. That can be seen in Isaacs v Green [2025], which has been widely discussed as a successful adult child claim.

The claimant, who had been excluded from his mother’s will, received an award amounting to 25% of the residuary estate. The claimant had limited income, housing vulnerability and health issues. The case is a reminder that there’s no automatic entitlement for an adult child, but there may be a claim where reasonable financial provision for maintenance hasn’t been made.

A similar point can be drawn from commentary on Howe v Howe [2025], an unreported but widely discussed decision in which an estranged adult daughter was awarded £125,000 from what had previously been described as a £1.4m estate (although it was said to be lower at the point of trial).

The claimant’s estrangement from the deceased, and the deceased’s negative views of her, didn’t prevent the court from concluding that reasonable financial provision hadn’t been made. Instead, the focus was on the claimant’s financial vulnerability, health needs and the evidence said to connect her circumstances with her upbringing.

Taken together, Isaacs and Howe suggest that the familiar post-Ilott language of “something more” still matters but shouldn’t be applied as a rigid formula. These cases point to a broader willingness to look closely at vulnerability, disability, housing insecurity and the practical impact of family history.

Testamentary freedom remains a core principle, but where there’s a genuine need and a proper factual basis for intervention, the court may still make an award even in difficult family circumstances.

Estrangement will not always defeat a claim

Estrangement and alleged poor conduct are frequently relied on by estates defending claims, particularly those brought by adult children. Recent cases suggest, however, that while conduct remains relevant under the statutory framework, it will not necessarily be decisive where there’s real financial need.

That was one of the most discussed features of Howe v Howe, where the deceased’s adverse views of the claimant didn’t prevent an award being made.

McDaniel v Talbot [2026] points in the same direction. This was another successful adult child claim, despite estrangement and disinheritance. The claimant had been estranged from the deceased for most of her life, following his decision to sever contact when she was an infant, until a brief reconciliation shortly before his death. The deceased left his estate to his second wife, with whom he had two children.

The court considered the claimant’s financial position, her caring responsibilities for her own children, both of whom had significant needs, and her contribution to the deceased and his mother during the reconciliation period. Although the claimant sought a larger award to purchase a property, the court considered that disproportionate and instead awarded £123,418.47 to address debts and recurring income needs.

The “something more” here was the close father-daughter relationship between the claimant and the deceased towards the end of his life, which was said to elevate the situation between them to a moral dimension.

Read alongside Howe and Isaacs, McDaniel reinforces the point that estrangement is neither irrelevant nor fatal. It may affect liability, quantum or the court’s view of the family history, but it will not necessarily prevent recovery if the wider statutory factors support an award.

Late claims remain difficult

If the adult child cases show flexibility on substance, the procedural authorities show the opposite. A good example is O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026], which is important for its approach to delay.

The claimant was refused permission to bring a claim outside the six-month period from issue of the Grant of Probate, as a person treated as a “child of the family”. The court held that the claim didn’t have a real prospect of success and, even if it did, permission shouldn’t be granted because there had been a delay of more than four years and the estate had already been distributed.

That emphasis on procedure matters in practice. Claims under the 1975 Act must usually be issued within six months of the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration. Although the court has discretion to extend time, recent authority shows that this remains a high hurdle rather than something a claimant should expect as a matter of course.

Claimants should take advice early. For executors and beneficiaries, careful estate administration remains important, particularly where a potential claim has already been raised.

Spousal claims remain distinct

Although much of the recent discussion has centred on adult child claims, Klein v Cripps Trust Corporation [2025] is a reminder that claims by spouses remain in a distinct legal category. The court’s approach to provision for spouses and minor children is materially broader than its approach to other applicants under the Act.

In Klein, the deceased left a multi-million-pound estate. His will provided his wife of 17 years with £300,000 and their minor son with a trust fund of £100,000. A friend and business partner received £200,000 plus 10% of the residuary estate, with the remaining 90% passing to charity.

Following a complex procedural history, the court ordered a lump sum to meet the claimant’s needs, together with further payments of up to 40% of the estate once the value had been determined. The decision is also notable for the costs consequences. The conduct of the second defendant (being the friend and business partner) led to an indemnity costs order against her, and her entitlement under the will was the first to be reduced if needed to satisfy the claimant’s award.

That distinction remains central to the statutory scheme. A spouse isn’t limited to provision for maintenance alone, whereas non-spousal applicants are. In practice, this gives the court a wider redistributive discretion in spouse cases, often informed by the familiar divorce cross-check.

For that reason, while adult child claims often attract attention, spouses and civil partners continue to stand on a very different footing. The recent authorities don’t dilute that long-established distinction. Adult children may succeed where maintenance-based provision is justified, but the legal and practical reach of a spousal claim remains much wider.

What do these cases mean in practice?

The practical message from the recent cases is that claims under the 1975 Act remain highly fact-sensitive, but certain themes are becoming clearer. Adult child claims can succeed where financial need is genuine and supported by evidence. Estrangement may be relevant, but it’s unlikely to be a complete answer on its own. Equally, delay remains a serious risk. A claimant who misses the six-month timeframe may face real difficulty, especially if the estate has already been administered and distributed.

Whether you’re considering bringing a claim or responding to one as an executor or beneficiary, early advice and clear financial evidence remain critical.

How can HCR Law help?

Our Disputed Wills, Trusts and Estates team advises claimants, executors and beneficiaries on claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

If you’re concerned that a will or intestacy hasn’t made reasonable financial provision, or you need to defend a claim against an estate, we can help you assess the merits, understand the practical options available and take the right steps at an early stage.