In CASE you missed it… Howe V Howe

In this feature we examine key cases in relation to will writing and other estate planning activities to keep you up to date on recent developments in the law. All cases covered will be recent, relevant, and widely reported. This time we are looking at Howe v Howe [2025], a case that has seen an excluded daughter awarded £125,000 from her late father’s £1.4m estate.

The background

Roger Howe (the deceased) died on 27^th March 2020 after a tragic fall from a window. He left behind an estate worth £1.4m, mostly tied up in his business BW Broadcast. He left his entire estate to his mother, sister, and two nephews, to the exclusion of his only child Jenna Howe (the claimant). The deceased had often expressed that he felt the claimant was “lazy”, “useless” and “druggy” and had long had a relationship with her that could be described as strained.

The claim

Initially the claimant attempted to have the will set aside, claiming that it was invalid as a witness signature had been forged. This claim was discontinued after the death of her witness and loss of the pro bono solicitor acting for the claimant, leaving her with £42,000 to pay in relation to the executors’ costs. The claimant was convicted of harassment of one of the deceased’s executors.

The claimant issued a claim against the deceased’s estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. She sought the sum of £450,000 for her maintenance.

The deceased’s executors sought to enforce the costs order and assigned it to Leck Holdings Ltd to enforce. They were held to be unable to enforce the costs order while the 1975 Act claim was pending due to the claimant having a counterclaim that exceeded the value of the debt specified in the costs order.

The 1975 Act claim progressed to trial in January 2025. The claimant’s position was that the deceased’s cruelty and poor treatment of her during her childhood and adolescence directly contributed to her need for financial provision now as it had led to health issues rendering her unable to work. The claimant had suffered from drug addiction and bulimia, as well as other mental health issues as a result of “body shaming” comments the deceased had frequently made about her in her youth.

The outcome

The judge held that the deceased’s will had failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. Although the claimant and deceased had been estranged for a long time the judge found that the claimant’s health issues were compelling reason enough for provision to be made. Although there were issues with the claimant’s conduct, particularly the harassment conviction, the judge ultimately found that these were only minor factors.

An award of £125,000 was made. The aware was structed in a way to:

• Pay the claimants debts,
• Pay for a new car,
• Pay for the claimant’s healthcare, specifically therapy and replacement breast implants as these are “crucial to her confidence”,
• Cover an income shortfall for the next ten years with a weekly £75 payment.

The award is to be held on discretionary trusts to protect the claimant from spending the award unwisely and to preserve her benefit entitlement.

The takeaway

This is one more case to add to the increasing body of case law since Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17 that shows that claims by estranged adult children are not to be easily disregarded. The previous notion that the claimant should need to show some additional moral obligation owed by the deceased appears to be declining, and legitimate need is outweighing moral obligation.