Adult Children and Inheritance Act Claims – Will the kids always win?

What is the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependents) Act 1975?

This piece of legislation was brought in to allow anyone, who believed that a deceased person had not made reasonable provision for them, to make a claim for financial compensation against the deceased’s estate.

It’s worthwhile bearing in mind something easily forgotten: the same legislation can be used where someone has died intestate and an intestate distribution had not allowed for reasonable or any provision for someone.

Who can make a claim?

The legislation limits those who have standing to make a claim and those who do not. It specifies several categories of claimants, one of which is children (and another indirectly relevant to the article is someone treated as a child of the deceased).

When can a claim be made?

It’s important to note that the clock does not start on the death of the person’s estate the claim is being made against. Claimants must bring their claim formally within 6 months of the issued grant of probate, or if intestate the granting of letters of administration.

Although this is a limit in fixed in section 4 of the legislation, the Courts have infrequently applied a wide interpretation of this and allowed claims to be heard well in excess of the six month window (for example, Cowan v Foreman 2019 – Court of Appeal allowed 17 months after the six month window had closed; in Thakare v Bhusate 2020 a claim was allowed more than 25 years after the closure of the claim window).

Any claim for an extension is heard only subject to exceptional circumstances.

What factors are considered when determining a claim?

If the claimant fulfils at least one of the categories, the claim can be heard to determine the level of compensation to be awarded. There are several factors which contribute to this decision. The most important are:

• Firstly, the financial resources available to the claimant, not only now but in the future. This is in effect an assessment of their assets, income as well as liabilities. The assessment also determines what resources they might need not only now but in the future.
• There is a corresponding assessment of the beneficiaries under the Will or intestacy.
• The value of the deceased’s estate to determine how much value there is available to share.

These steps are important since, if there is a determination the claim is successful, then the very beneficiaries the testator intended to inherit will receive a reduced inheritance in order to fulfil the compensation granted to the claimant.

How might an award be calculated?

Assuming then that the claimant fulfils a category of claimant and there is deemed a need to make provision for the claimant, how is the level of claim determined?

The overarching term used is ‘reasonable financial provision’. This is highly subjective and not defined in the legislation – the term is left open-ended to allow the Court latitude to determine the needs of the claimant on a case-by-case basis.

Specifically in relation to child claimants, the amount awarded is dependent on what level of financial compensation is required for their maintenance. And here comes some important points:

• Maintenance is not deemed to place the child in a position of being able to live a lavish lifestyle.
• Neither is maintenance considered to be the bare minimum they would need to survive on a subsistence level.
• The level of award might consider provision of funds to pay debts, cover essential living costs or address income shortfalls.

Recent case law

As can be imagined there is a huge case history of claims being made by adult children. But in relation to the specific points above, it’s worth contrasting two recent cases, which might be useful guidance when speaking with clients wishing to exclude a child/ stepchild.

In McDaniel v Talbot [2025], daughter Emma had been abandoned by her father when she was only 8 months old. Her father went on to become a millionaire and by the time of his death was worth £1.7m.

He wrote a Will in 2014 which explicitly excluded not only Emma but her brother, on the ground he had been estranged from Emma for around 20 years.

However, and pertinent to the success of the case, around 2019 Emma and her father rekindled their relationship which went on to be emotionally close.

Needless to say, the father did not go on to update his Will and died unexpectedly in 2022.

Emma’s claim was successful and it’s interesting to look at why:

• She was financially vulnerable and was on State benefits, had two disabled children, suffered from her own health issues and could not be expected in her future to improve her financial prospects.
• Emma had provided care not only for her father but also his mother. By contrast, the sole beneficiary of the Will – his wife – was well provided for and would not be unduly financially distressed by a rearrangement of the deceased’s estate distribution in favour of Emma.
• The level of the award made was sufficient to provide for Emma’s maintenance needs. Her debts were cleared and there was provision of a financial buffer to cover unforeseen expenses.

Interestingly, the award also included a provision for occasional modest spending for things like trips and clothing allowances.

In Miles v Shearer [2021] two adult daughters who had been excluded from their father’s Will made a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependents) Act.

Similarly to the above case, in this case their father was wealthy – a £2.2m estate. He had divorced the claimant’s mother in 2007 and had gone on to remarry, leaving all to his new wife in his Will. The evidence suggested that prior to the divorce, both daughters were well provided for.

The application for financial support contained:

• One daughter made a claim for funds to purchase a new house and to open a business
• The other daughter wanted to convert their mortgage and buy out her ex-husband’s share of the house. However, it transpired that she earned £70k per year and held equity in the house of £300k.

As if that were not enough, after the divorce, in 2008 the father had made substantial gifts of £150k to each child and wrote confirming that was the end of his financial provision.

The case was dismissed on the basis that neither daughter was able to demonstrate a financial need for reasonable basic maintenance which could not be met by their own financial resources.

The Takeout

Firstly, it’s a useful reminder that not everyone the client wishes to exclude or provide a reduced inheritance to can make a claim anyway – EVERY claimant must fulfil at least one category, and if they don’t they cannot claim under the Inheritance Act at least.

Secondly, even if a child has standing to bring a claim, of itself that does not mean a claim will be successful, and the definition of maintenance is all important here.

A word of great caution though – there are a few ‘no-win, no-fee’ solicitors’ firms who operate based on:

• Taking the case of a claimant (and incidentally this type of process goes beyond IPFDA claims cases).
• Writing to the personal representatives of the deceased’s estate with the message of ‘we want £X,000 and if you don’t we will proceed to Court action’.
• The level of the ‘claim’ is such that it would cost the personal representatives far more in solicitor’s legal fees in defending the estate (and beneficiaries inheritances) against the claim than simply rolling over and paying the claim out.
• In other words, even if the claim might not have merit when subjected to the scrutiny of Mediation (or if it goes forward to Court action), the claimant can often cause sufficient mischief that in the end it’s better the PRs just pay out a negotiated fee for the claim to go away.

So it is better not to promise any strategy will render the estate immune from challenge, however little the award might eventually be.

The author is perhaps over dramatically reminded of the famous line from the Godfather: