This very recent case of McDaniel v Talbot [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch) considered a challenge of a will by an adult child under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and gives useful guidance on how Courts deal with claims brought by adult children as well as what “reasonable financial provision” actually means.
The Claim
The case involved the deceased Mr Talbot who died suddenly in 2022. He had made a Will in 2014 in which he left his entire estate, valued at around £1.5 million to his wife. In this Will he had excluded his daughter Emma McDaniel (Claimant). The reason for this, was that he had left her mother when the Claimant was just 8 months old and they had had very little contact since. The exclusion therefore accurately reflected the current relationship he had at the time with his daughter when the will was signed which stated…
“I DECLARE that I have NOT made any provision in my Will for my son Rhys Winstone whom I have never met nor my daughter Emma Winstone who I last saw about twenty years ago. I do not have contact with either of them.”
However, three years before Mr Talbot passed away, him and his daughter had in fact reconciled and she had provided care to him and his elderly mother. The earlier Will, at the time Mr Talbot passed away, had not been updated and therefore, at the time of his death, everything went to Mrs Talbot, excluding the Claimant from benefiting from her father’s estate on his death.
The Claimant brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 on the grounds that her father’s Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance.
What does the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 state?
Under section 1 of the 1975 Act any of the following persons may apply to the Court for an order under section 2 of the 1975 Act:
- A spouse or civil partner of the deceased
- A former spouse or civil partner
- A person living as the spouse or civil partner of the deceased
- A child of the deceased
- A child treated as a child of the family
- A person maintained by the deceased
Where claims are made by an adult child, reasonable financial provision according to the maintenance standard applied by the Court means ‘such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance’.
The 1975 Act does not define ‘maintenance’. While it does not mean only what the applicant needs to subsist, it also does not mean providing anything that a person may regard as desirable for their general welfare. It has been suggested that the standard of maintenance that is reasonable means payment enough to allow an applicant to maintain their standard of living.
Under S3(1) of the 1975 Act there are seven general guidelines that the courts must consider when deciding if reasonable financial provision has been made and, if necessary, whether to make an order and what provision should be made. These are:
- the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- the financial resources and financial needs which any other applicant for an order under section 2 of the Act has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- the financial resources and financial needs which any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- any obligations and responsibilities which the deceased had towards any applicant or towards any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
- the size and nature of the net estate of the deceased;
- any physical or mental disability of any applicant or any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
- any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant.
The Verdict
The High Court when reaching their decision considered the Claimant’s financial situation. Although both her and her spouse were working and had a pension, on closer inspection, it was found the Claimant was £20,000 in debt and she was the primary carer for 2 of her adult children who had severe physical and learning disabilities. As a result this affected her ability to work and bring income to the house. Along with this, she and her husband also had their own health issues.
The Court also took into account that despite the Claimant’s own responsibilities at home and her poor health, she cared for Mr Talbot and his elderly mother in the years preceding his death. The Court did make it clear however, that providing the deceased with care and rebuilding an otherwise estranged relationship does not on its own, give someone grounds to claim for a financial sum. Rather in this case, it was clear the Claimant was in financial need and was considered to be a ‘necessitous claimant’ as her income matched her expenditure. Judge Shea KC stated…
I bear in mind that it is not the function of the court when making a determination under the 1975 Act, to provide for everything a claimant would like to be able to afford. Whether the claimant is in need in terms of maintenance is a relative concept, measured amongst other things by their prior circumstances and prospects. The court is entitled however to take a realistic view of the finances of the claimant, and to give due weight to a situation where the resources of the claimant are just sufficient to cover outgoings, but not to give any appreciable leeway for some small additional items of luxury, from time to time, or for unanticipated expenditure.
Taking all these matters into account, I am of the view that Emma is in effect a necessitous claimant, who in difficult circumstances, and with considerable self discipline, is just able to make ends meet, but only by dint of either depriving herself and her family of any small luxuries or going into debt to afford them, and with no possibility beyond further debt of meeting any unexpected expenses.
The Court also considered the financial situation of Mr Talbot’s widow and whether awarding anything to the Claimant would affect her own standard of living. It was found his widow was financially secure.
Taking the above into account, the High Court awarded the Claimant £123,418 from her father’s estate.
Points to Consider
This case demonstrates the importance of ensuring a Will is revised where circumstances change especially where a relationship was previously estranged or strained and is no longer, else it could have the effect of excluding someone completely who otherwise you would have wanted to benefit from your estate as was the case here. In essence, it should reflect the actual reality of the relationship had with someone before you pass away.
It also highlights that bringing a claim under this Act is not based on fairness of what the claimant should receive but rather the evidence that is put to the Court and the claimant’s individual financial circumstances and whether, in light of this, reasonable financial provision has been made for them.
