By Rachel Waller, Contentious Wills and Probate Partner at Excello Law
The recent case of Duggan v Duggan is a striking reminder of the limits of the court’s role in inheritance disputes under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”). The judgment reinforces that care, sacrifice, and even hardship do not guarantee a greater slice of an estate.
The case centred on Sharon Duggan, who claimed a larger portion of her late mother Agnes Duggan’s estate, valued at £420,000, arguing she was owed “reasonable provision” under the 1975 Act. Sharon, who had cared for her mother from 2014 until Agnes’s death in 2018, lived in the family home and claimed she was unable to move out due to significant physical and mental health issues.
She made the case that she required either outright ownership of the home, a life interest, or at the very least the opportunity to purchase it at a favourable rate. She cited conditions including chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, depression, PTSD, and long Covid, alongside her reliance on two therapeutic rescue dogs. The property, she argued, wasn’t just a house, but her sanctuary.
However, although the needs of the claimant are one of the factors to be taken into account under the 1975 Act, the court ultimately rejected her claim.
Judge Alan Johns KC delivered a carefully reasoned judgment, which clarified two crucial principles in these kinds of disputes.
- First, that “reasonable financial provision” doesn’t mean rewarding meritorious behaviour, no matter how noble the intentions or how difficult the personal sacrifices.
- Second, that the courts will not override a valid will simply because one beneficiary believes they deserve more.
In this instance, Sharon had already been left a third of the estate, as had her two sisters. While she argued that her caregiving role warranted more, the court found that this did not amount to a moral obligation strong enough to deny her siblings their equal share. In fact, evidence suggested that Sharon had excluded one of her sisters from seeing their mother in the final years of her life, which only strengthened the judge’s view that the equal division was fair and reasonable. The judge also rejected the notion that Sharon had been promised the house or had any expectation she would inherit it beyond the terms of the will.
Why Legal Advice Matters
Cases like Duggan v Duggan are emotionally charged, legally complex, and fraught with risk, not only financial but relational. They are also avoidable.
Had this family consulted a lawyer during estate planning or at the early stages of the dispute, much of the distress, cost, and emotional fallout might have been mitigated.
As someone who deals with these disputes daily, my advice is simple: take estate planning advice from a properly qualified professional. If you are worried about how an estate is being administered, have concerns about a will, or feel you may have a claim under the 1975 Act, seek advice early.
Rachel Waller is a specialist in contentious wills, trusts and estates. She advises clients on probate and trusts disputes, contested wills, and claims in the Court of Protection.
