22 July 2026
Adult child inheritance claims: what a decade of case law reveals about the limits of financial provision
By Gino Ballestracci, Senior Associate and CMC Registered Mediator.
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 remains one of the most closely scrutinised areas of contentious probate. While claims by surviving spouses often attract attention, claims brought by adult children continue to generate uncertainty, particularly where long-standing family estrangement is involved.
Two significant cases, separated by almost a decade, provide valuable insight into how the courts approach these claims. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17 and the more recent High Court ruling in McDaniel v Talbot [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch) demonstrate a remarkable consistency in judicial thinking. Despite differing family circumstances and vastly different estate values, both cases underline the same fundamental principle: claims by adult children are not vehicles for inheritance redistribution but are limited to meeting genuine maintenance needs.
Gino Ballestracci, Senior Associate and CEDR-Accredited Mediator at Hayes + Storr Solicitors, delves deeper into what these two cases may mean for future claims by adult children.
Understanding the legal test
The starting point for any claim under the 1975 Act is whether the deceased’s will (or the intestacy rules) failed to make “reasonable financial provision” for the applicant.
For adult children, the threshold is particularly restrictive. Unlike spouses, adult children are generally only entitled to provision that is necessary for their maintenance. The court is therefore concerned with need rather than entitlement.
In practical terms, judges ask two key questions:
1. Has the deceased failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant?
2. If so, what financial provision is reasonably required to meet the claimant’s maintenance needs?
Importantly, the court is not tasked with correcting perceived unfairness or re-writing testamentary wishes simply because a claimant feels excluded.
The Enduring Influence of Ilott v Mitson
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ilott v Mitson remains the leading authority on adult child claims under the 1975 Act.
The case involved an adult daughter who had been estranged from her mother for more than 25 years. Despite the prolonged separation, the claimant was in difficult financial circumstances, living modestly and relying heavily on state benefits. Her mother’s estate, valued at approximately £486,000, had been left entirely to a number of animal charities, with no provision made for her daughter.
Although the claimant succeeded, the Supreme Court ultimately restored an award of just £50,000.
The significance of the judgment lies not in the claimant’s success, but in the court’s carefully restrained approach. Several principles emerged:
- Awards to adult children are generally restricted to maintenance.
- Testamentary freedom remains a central consideration.
- Long-term estrangement can substantially weaken a claim.
- Any award should be proportionate to genuine financial need and may even be structured to avoid disrupting means-tested benefits.
The decision signalled a clear reluctance by the courts to interfere with a deceased person’s wishes beyond what is strictly necessary.
McDaniel v Talbot: A Different Story, the Same Outcome
Nearly ten years later, McDaniel v Talbot presented the court with a more sympathetic factual background.
Unlike the relationship in Ilott, the claimant and her father had rebuilt their relationship before his death. Although estranged for much of her life, they reconciled in 2019 and developed a meaningful bond in the years that followed.
The deceased’s estate was considerably larger, worth approximately £1.75 million. His will left the entirety of the estate to his surviving spouse, effectively excluding the claimant.
The claimant faced substantial financial challenges. She had limited resources, depended on benefits, and carried significant caring responsibilities for two disabled children.
The High Court concluded that reasonable financial provision had not been made and awarded £123,418.47.
At first glance, the decision may appear generous. However, viewed in context, the award represented only a small fraction of the overall estate and remained firmly aligned with the maintenance-based approach established in Ilott.
Four Key Takeaways:
Reconciliation can help but is not decisive
One of the most notable differences between the two cases was the nature of the parent-child relationship at the time of death.
In Ilott, the estrangement remained unresolved. In McDaniel, a genuine reconciliation had taken place and the relationship had significantly improved.
The court accepted that reconciliation weakened any justification for complete exclusion. Nevertheless, it did not transform the claimant’s position into one of inheritance entitlement. The award remained carefully limited to what was required for maintenance.
Financial need remains the driving force
Both claimants were in difficult financial circumstances.
Each had modest means, limited earning capacity and ongoing responsibilities that restricted financial independence. These factors strengthened their claims and ultimately justified court intervention.
However, even compelling evidence of financial hardship does not automatically lead to substantial awards. The courts consistently focus on meeting maintenance needs rather than improving a claimant’s overall financial position.
Larger estates do not necessarily produce larger awards
A particularly striking comparison emerges when considering the size of the awards against the value of the estates.
- Ilott: £50,000 from an estate worth approximately £486,000 (around 10%)
- McDaniel: £123,418.47 from an estate worth approximately £1.75 million (around 7%)
Despite the significantly larger estate in McDaniel, the claimant received a lower percentage of the estate overall.
This reflects the court’s continued commitment to assessing the claimant’s actual maintenance needs rather than treating the estate value as a determining factor.
Testamentary freedom remains paramount
Perhaps the most important lesson is that the courts continue to place considerable weight on the principle of testamentary freedom.
The 1975 Act is designed to operate as a safety net, not a mechanism for redistributing wealth among disappointed family members.
Even where a claimant succeeds, judges will usually seek to interfere with a will only to the extent necessary to remedy a genuine lack of reasonable financial provision.
The courts are not concerned with what may appear morally fair; they are concerned with what is legally necessary.
Judicial Approach
While McDaniel v Talbot may appear more sympathetic on its facts than Ilott v Mitson, it does not signal any shift in the law. Instead, it reinforces the same cautious and measured approach that has characterised adult child claims for years.
The message is clear. Adult children bringing claims under the 1975 Act must demonstrate genuine financial need. Even successful claims are typically confined to maintenance-based awards that bear little relation to the overall size of the estate.
For beneficiaries, executors and claimants alike, these cases confirm that the courts remain reluctant to override testamentary wishes. Success under the Act is possible, but substantial awards remain the exception rather than the rule.
In an era where inheritance disputes continue to rise, Ilott and McDaniel stand as a reminder that the law’s primary objective is not to redistribute the deceased’s wealth, but to ensure that genuine financial needs do not go unmet.
Contact us
We are here to help you achieve a fair and practical resolution. If you believe that a will – or the intestacy rules, have failed to make reasonable financial provision for you, contact our dispute resolution team today. We will answer your questions, explain your options, and guide you through every stage of the process with clear, supportive advice.
Email: gino.ballestracci@hayes-storr.com or call: 01603 980300
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.
