The recent case of David Marcus Isaacs v Michael Anthony Green & Ors [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam) is an example of an adult child successfully claiming under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”).
The 1975 Act allows individuals falling within a specified category of claimant to bring a claim against an Estate for reasonable financial provision.
A “child” is a claimant capable of bringing a claim, but it can be quite difficult for an adult child to succeed in such claim. This is because the financial needs of a minor child are clear and there is typically an obvious dependency on the deceased. Adult children have to show “something more” (emphasised in Ilott v Mitson [2017]), being the need for financial maintenance from the deceased parent’s Estate.
This case involved the Estate of Mrs Isaacs, valued at approximately £600,00, comprising of property, savings and investments. Mrs Isaacs died in April 2013. She had three children; David, Ruth and Susan.
In 2002, Mrs Isaacs executed a mirror Will with her husband which left their Estate to each other in the first instance and then equally between the three children on the death of the second of them to die. In 2006, Mrs Isaacs changed her Will, removing David.
David stated his removal was around the time he was getting divorced and Mrs Isaacs did not want to risk David’s ex-wife having a claim to the Estate. Susan suggested there was a poor relationship between David and Mrs Isaacs, which was the reason for the removal.
David’s divorce was finalised in 2008 but Mrs Isaacs did not execute a further Will after her 2006 Will. Mr Isaacs died in 2010 so upon Mrs Isaacs’ death in 2013, her Estate was split equally between Ruth and Susan, in accordance with her Will.
David brought a 1975 Act claim seeking reasonable financial provision from the Estate.
David had a limited income comprising of state pension and pension credits. David had no savings and suffered from multiple health conditions. David initially sought £265,000 but later sought one-third of the Estate.
After Mr Isaacs death, David had moved back in with Mrs Isaacs to care for her and remained living in Mrs Isaacs’ property after her death.
Ruth had modest savings and income, and she too lived with David in Mrs Isaac’s property. Susan, residing in California, was bed-ridden and suffered from complex medical conditions. Her care was publicly funded.
The Court considered Sections 1 and 2 of the 1975 Act, which refer to “reasonable financial provision” and “maintenance”. The judge relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017], where it was held “maintenance” must meet everyday living expenses and may be provided via lump sums rather than periodic payments. The Judge also considered Re Dennis [1981] and Re Coventry [1980], which stated that a moral claim (i.e. parent-child relationship) is not a prerequisite to a 1975 Act claim but may be relevant in adult child claims.
The Judge found David had a genuine need for financial provision, particularly for housing. The Court did not award David a life interest in the property, which was due to the modest size of the Estate and the impracticality of such an arrangement among siblings of similar age. The Judge awarded David 25% of the residuary estate, and Ruth and Susan each received 37.5%.
David and Ruth were given six months to either purchase Mrs Isaacs’ property or vacate it. During this period, David and Ruth were ordered to pay Susan £1,125 per month in rent.
Whilst it can be difficult for an adult child to succeed in a claim against a parent’s Estate, it is possible if there is sufficient evidence that reasonable financial maintenance is required. It is important that legal advice is taken promptly, especially as there is a limitation period of six months from the date of the Grant to bring such claim.
If you would like to discuss a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 – whether you need to consider making one or are facing a claim that needs to be defended – please click here to contact our expert team and we will be happy to talk to you.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
