Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the court may intervene in the distribution of a deceased person’s estate if it finds that the will fails to make reasonable financial provision for a dependant. In the case of adult children, especially those capable of independent living, more than the mere existence of a qualifying relationship is typically required to support such a claim. As such, successful claims by adult children are relatively rare.
In the present case before the High Court (Family Division), the deceased passed away in 2013, having executed a will in 2006. The will left the residuary estate to her two adult daughters, Ruth Isaacs and Susan Ellis-Cohn (the defendant), and made no provision for her adult son, David Isaacs (the claimant).
At the time of the claim, the claimant was retired, on a modest income, and living in the deceased’s property. The personal representative of the estate was seeking possession of the house and pursuing a claim against the claimant regarding his continued occupation, raising the real prospect that he would be rendered homeless.
Meanwhile, the defendant, who resided in a care facility in the United States due to complex medical needs, expressed a wish to move to a more suitable residential home. Both the claimant and defendant were therefore in demonstrable financial need, presenting the court with a balancing exercise.
The defendant argued that the deceased had intentionally excluded the claimant from the will due to personal dislike. However, the court didn’t agree and, on the balance of probabilities, it concluded that the deceased’s exclusion of the claimant more likely stemmed from concerns about the financial implications of his then-deteriorating marriage. Although she did not revise her will following the eventual divorce, the court accepted that their relationship had become “friendly” in her later years.
The court was satisfied that the claimant was in genuine financial need, unable to earn a living, and required maintenance. As the judge observed:
“Having regard to [the claimant’s] financial needs and resources, his state of health and my findings as to the circumstances surrounding his exclusion from the 2006 will, I consider that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for him and that I should now make reasonable financial provision for him within this claim.”
Citing prior case law, the court acknowledged that where housing is awarded by way of maintenance under the 1975 Act, it is often provided through a life interest rather than an outright capital sum. However, the judge determined that such an arrangement was unsuitable in this case. The estate was modest, and granting a life interest would have tied up a significant portion of the capital, effectively preventing the other beneficiaries—siblings of similar age—from accessing their share for the remainder of the claimant’s life. In addition, the strained family dynamics would have necessitated the appointment of a professional trustee, further diminishing the estate’s value.
Accordingly, the High Court awarded the claimant 25% of the estate, amounting to approximately £150,000, with the balance to be divided between his two sisters.
