Examples of Successful and Unsuccessful Inheritance Act Claims

Successful and unsuccessful Inheritance Act claims: what the case law tells us

When someone makes a will, the testator (the person making the will) is free to leave their estate to whomever they like, but that freedom has limits. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows certain people to claim against a deceased’s estate where “reasonable financial provision” has not been made for them.

The problem is defining what is reasonable.

This article examines real successful and unsuccessful Inheritance Act cases that reached court. It explains, in plain terms, why the court decided as it did.

Every case turns on its own facts. A specialist inheritance act claim solicitor can assess whether there is a sound legal basis and sufficient evidence to make a claim. If you think you may have a claim under the Inheritance Act, or you are an executor or administrator defending an Inheritance Act claim, it is important to speak with a contentious probate solicitor who can assess the merits of your case. You can request a free consultation via The Probate Network and act quick, Inheritance Act claims have strict time limits.

Who can make an Inheritance Act 1975 claim?

Not everyone is entitled to claim. The law limits claims to specific categories of people. These include a spouse or civil partner of the deceased; a former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried or formed a subsequent civil partnership; a child of the deceased, including an adult child; a person treated by the deceased as a child of the family, such as a stepchild; a cohabitant who lived with the deceased as if they were married or civil partners throughout the two years immediately before the death; and anyone who was being maintained wholly or partly by the deceased immediately before the death. We cover this in more detail in How to Make an Inheritance Act Claim.

One further requirement applies to every category. A claim under the 1975 Act can only be brought if the deceased was domiciled in England and Wales at the date of death. If they were domiciled elsewhere, the Act does not apply, however strong the claim might otherwise be.

Strict Time Limits Apply

Claimants must act within six months of the date on which representation is first taken out, which in practice means the grant of probate or letters of administration. Since October 2014 a claim can also be issued before a grant has been obtained. Miss the six-month window and you will need the court’s permission to proceed. That permission is not guaranteed.

We cover this in more detail in Inheritance Tax Time Limits.

Successful Inheritance Act claims: what made them work?

Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam): a wife left with nothing

This case drew national attention. Harbans Kaur and Karnail Singh married in 1955 and were together for 66 years. They had seven children, six of whom survived him. Mrs Kaur raised the family and worked for decades in the family clothing business without a salary or any stake in it. She was financially dependent on her husband throughout.

Mr Singh died in August 2021. His will left his entire estate to be divided equally between his two sons, excluding his wife and daughters entirely. The stated intention was to keep the estate within the male line. The estate was worth between £1.2 million and £1.9 million. By then, Mrs Kaur was 83, registered disabled, and living on state benefits of just under £12,000 a year. She had also left the family home after one of her sons moved in.

The spousal standard and the divorce cross-check

Two factors drove the outcome. First, a surviving spouse is judged by a higher standard than any other claimant. For a spouse, the question is what provision is reasonable in all the circumstances, not just what is needed for maintenance. Every other category, adult children included, is limited to maintenance. Second, the court applied the “divorce cross-check”: what might the applicant reasonably have expected had the marriage ended in divorce rather than death?

Mr Justice Peel found this to be the clearest possible case in which reasonable financial provision had not been made. After a 66-year marriage, during which the assets had been built up, she was left with next to nothing. He awarded her 50% of the net estate. The court also ordered an immediate payment of £20,000 and directed that her costs be paid from the estate before it was divided.

Why it succeeded: A long marriage, full contribution to jointly built assets, complete exclusion, the spousal standard, and a divorce cross-check pointing plainly to equal division.

Ilott v The Blue Cross and others [2017] UKSC 17: estrangement did not end the claim

Heather Ilott claimed against her late mother’s estate after being left out of the will entirely. The estate, worth around £486,000, went to three charities with which her mother had no particular connection. Mrs Ilott had left home at 17 to live with a man her mother disapproved of. They were estranged for the next 26 years. She was living on state benefits with five children.

A district judge awarded her £50,000. The Court of Appeal increased the award to £143,000, enough to buy the housing association home she rented, together with an option to receive up to £20,000 in instalments. The charities appealed. The Supreme Court restored the original £50,000 award.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had not been entitled to interfere with the district judge’s evaluative judgment. It also found problems with the proposed housing award, including the Court of Appeal’s failure to address properly the effect on Mrs Ilott’s means-tested benefits.

The court also corrected a common misconception. The charities did not need to show a competing need or a moral claim. They were the beneficiaries the testator chose, and that was sufficient. For an adult child, “reasonable financial provision” means maintenance: what is needed to live at an appropriate standard, not a share of the estate.

Why it succeeded in part: Genuine financial need and a very low income. Estrangement did not defeat the claim. However, the award tracked maintenance need, not the size of the estate, and the testator’s wishes carried real weight.

Dignam-Thomas v McCourt [2023] EWHC 546 (Fam): two daughters in their sixties succeed

Two adult daughters, aged 61 and 68, claimed against their father’s estate. He had left everything to their brother, aged 72, who had lived with him and continued to do so after his death. The estate was one property worth around £355,000.

The claim succeeded because the daughters could show real financial dependency. Their father had supported them financially over many years: one after her divorce, covering household and car costs and payments to keep her business running. Both had significant needs of their own. One required several hours of care a day. In turn, they had given him physical and financial support through the ailments of his final years.

Mrs Justice Theis found that the will failed to make reasonable provision for either daughter. The court also took account of evidence that the deceased had intended to provide for all his children while securing a home for his son. It awarded the daughters £70,000 and £90,000 respectively, leaving the remainder of the estate to their brother.

Why it succeeded: Genuine need, years of financial support from the deceased, and evidence that his stated intentions did not match his will. Note that the brother still kept roughly half the estate. The court provided for the daughters’ needs rather than redistributing everything evenly.

Unsuccessful Inheritance Act claims: where things went wrong

Miles v Shearer [2021] EWHC 1000 (Ch): well-off daughters fail

Two adult daughters claimed against the estate of Anthony Shearer, the former chief executive of merchant bank Singer & Friedlander, who died in October 2017 aged 68. His estate was worth approximately £2.2 million. Juliet, 40, and Lauretta, 39, received nothing under his will. The principal beneficiary was his second wife, Pamela.

Their parents had divorced in 2007. In 2008, their father gave Juliet £177,000 and Lauretta £185,000. He wrote to each of them to say this marked the end of his financial support. That proved decisive.

Juliet sought funds for housing, retraining, and an income shortfall related to her severely autistic daughter. She was living with her mother in a large property and held capital of £175,000. Lauretta sought money to convert her interest-only mortgage and buy out her ex-husband’s share of her home. She earned around £70,000 a year and held roughly £300,000 of equity.

The High Court dismissed both claims. Neither daughter had shown a genuine need for maintenance, and the court found that their father had no continuing responsibility to provide for them at the date of his death. After 2008, they had no reasonable expectation of further help.

Why it failed: No demonstrable maintenance need, no continuing parental obligation, and substantial lifetime provision already made and expressly stated to be final. Exclusion from a will is not itself a ground for a claim.

Larsen & Anor v Annan [2023] EWHC 662 (Ch): one brother succeeds, the other does not

George Annan died in January 2021, leaving an estate of around £480,000: a house worth £220,000 and roughly £255,000 in savings. His 2013 will left £10,000 to each of his three adult children, with the residue going to his wife or, if she died first, to his daughter Heather. His wife predeceased him, so Heather took the residue.

His sons Wayne and Russell each brought a claim. Solicitors’ attendance notes showed their father had initially wanted to leave them nothing because of their past conduct. He had included the £10,000 legacies only on advice about the risk of a challenge.

Russell’s claim partly succeeded. He was chronically disabled, had no employment or property, and lived on state benefits. The court found the will failed to make reasonable provision for his care needs. It awarded him an additional £25,000, held on discretionary trust rather than paid outright. The trust structure protected his benefits entitlement and reflected evidence he was still spending significantly on gambling.

Wayne’s claim was dismissed. In his late fifties, he ran a profitable business, owned his home plus two rental properties with combined equity of around £240,000, and earned over £30,000 a year before his wife’s income. The court rejected his argument that voluntary loan and mortgage overpayments left him short. It found he could meet his own reasonable financial needs. The £10,000 legacy was reasonable provision for him.

Why one failed and one succeeded: Eligibility to claim is not the same as entitlement to an award. Two brothers with identical legacies ended up on opposite sides because the court assessed each one’s actual financial needs and resources separately.

Ames v Jones [2016] EW Misc B67 (CC): the lifestyle choice case

Danielle Ames, 41, claimed against her father Michael’s estate. He had left everything to his second wife Elaine, his partner of more than 30 years. Danielle sought £300,000, relying partly on her father having told her the estate would one day be hers.

Recorder Halpern QC dismissed the claim. Danielle had no disability and was fit for work. Her unemployment was a lifestyle choice. Her evidence about her needs and resources was unreliable, and she failed to discharge the burden of proof. Her father had already met his obligations in his lifetime by setting her up in a picture-framing business she later gave up. Any award would also have eaten into an estate his widow, past working age and in poor health, needed for her own maintenance. Danielle was ordered to pay both sides’ costs.

Why it failed: Capacity to work that was not being used, unreliable evidence, and a surviving spouse with a stronger competing claim.

Wellesley v Earl Cowley [2019] EWHC 11 (Ch): estrangement the claimant caused

Lady Tara Wellesley had been estranged from her father, the 7th Earl Cowley, for around 30 years. She was left £20,000 out of an estate of £1.3 million. She sought a substantial share to buy her council house and train as an artist.

Deputy Master Linwood dismissed the claim entirely. He found the estrangement was due to Tara’s conduct alone, and that this outweighed all the factors in her favour. He added that the claim would have failed regardless. She was living within her means, had received no financial support from her father in adult life, was capable of working, and could use the £20,000 legacy to help her return to work.

Why it failed: Responsibility for the estrangement, no established maintenance shortfall, and a legacy the court found already reasonable.

Wright v Waters [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch): conduct outweighing genuine need

Patricia Wright, 64, claimed against her mother Mary’s £138,701 estate, which went mainly to her brother David and his family. Patricia was in real difficulty: widowed, wheelchair-bound after a heart attack, with diabetes, angina, heart disease, osteoarthritis and depression, and outgoings exceeding her income.

HHJ Behrens accepted all of that. However, he also found she had written to her mother in 2001 disowning her and saying she wished her dead. She never retracted it. She did not speak to her mother for the following nine years. She had also kept £10,000 her mother had given her to invest on her mother’s behalf. Her conduct outweighed every factor in her favour. The court found it objectively reasonable for the will to make no provision for her.

Why it failed: Conduct under section 3(1)(g) of the Act. The case illustrates that genuine financial need and ill health may still be outweighed by the claimant’s conduct.

Sargeant v Sargeant [2018] EWHC 8 (Ch): out of time

A widow tried to bring a claim more than ten years after the six-month deadline. The court accepted that her claim was arguable on the merits. Nevertheless, it refused permission to proceed. She had lived within the terms of her husband’s will for a decade without taking legal advice or exploring a variation. That deliberate inaction, rather than the weakness of her case, was decisive.

Why it failed: The application was brought long after the six-month period from the date on which representation was first taken out. This is a procedural warning rather than a point about the underlying merits.

What factors do courts weigh in Inheritance Act claims?

Taken together, these cases point to several consistent themes.

Financial need is the central test for adult children. Courts will not improve a claimant’s standard of living simply because they were excluded. They ask whether the deceased failed to make reasonable provision for the claimant’s maintenance: day-to-day living costs, housing, and basic needs.

Contribution and dependency matter. Cases involving long marriages, caring responsibilities, or financial dependency on the deceased tend to attract more generous awards. Courts look at the whole picture, including the length of the relationship, what the claimant gave up, and what they are left with.

Estrangement is not automatically fatal. As Ilott shows, even a deeply estranged relationship can support a successful claim where genuine financial need exists. However, courts will consider who caused the estrangement and whether the deceased’s decision to exclude the claimant was objectively reasonable.

The size of the estate matters. A court is less likely to make a meaningful award from a modest estate where doing so would leave other beneficiaries with very little. Conversely, a large estate passing to beneficiaries with no obvious moral claim makes it easier for a claimant to succeed.

Timing is critical. An application must usually be made within six months of the date on which a grant of representation is first taken out. Acting quickly avoids the need to ask the court for permission to proceed out of time.

What happens if you miss the six-month deadline?

Missing the deadline does not automatically end a claim, but it does make matters harder. You must apply to the court for permission to bring a late claim. The court will consider all the circumstances, including the strength of the claim, the reason for and length of the delay, whether negotiations were underway, whether the estate has been distributed and any prejudice to the beneficiaries.

Therefore, if you are considering a claim, take legal advice as soon as possible, even if a grant of representation has not yet been issued.

Can Inheritance Act claims settle out of court?

Yes, and many do. In practice, Inheritance Act claims often resolve through negotiation or mediation before a full hearing. This can save time, costs and stress for everyone involved.

Mediation involves an independent third party helping both sides try to reach an agreement. The mediator does not impose a decision. Any settlement reached should be formally documented, and court approval may be required in some cases, including where a party is a child or lacks capacity.

A specialist inheritance act solicitor can advise whether mediation is appropriate in your case and help you negotiate from a well-informed position.

What evidence supports an Inheritance Act claim?

The strength of a claim often depends on the quality of the evidence. Courts expect claimants to set out their financial position in detail. In addition, they look at the nature of the relationship with the deceased and any contributions the claimant made to the estate or to the deceased’s care.

Useful evidence includes:

• Bank statements and payslips
• Medical records where health affects earning capacity
• Evidence of care provided to the deceased
• Correspondence showing the deceased’s intentions
• A schedule of monthly income and outgoings

The more clearly you can show genuine need, the stronger your position.

What to do if you think you have a claim

If you believe a will has failed to make reasonable financial provision for you, the first step is to get independent legal advice. Seek a solicitor who specialises in inheritance act disputes. Every case is different. The outcome depends on your specific circumstances, the size of the estate, your relationship with the deceased, and your financial position.

Be aware that Inheritance Act claims can be costly and time-consuming. Many settle before reaching a full hearing. A specialist solicitor can help you assess whether a claim is likely to succeed and whether negotiation might achieve a fair outcome without going to court.

If you need help finding a solicitor or understanding the probate process more broadly, you can request a free consultation or a probate quote via The Probate Network.

Read Next

Inheritance Act Claims: A Guide for Cohabitees
Inheritance Act Claims: A guide for Children

This article provides general information only. It does not constitute legal advice. If you are considering bringing or defending an Inheritance Act claim, you should seek advice from a qualified solicitor who specialises in contentious probate.