Case Study: How an Inheritance Act Claim Secured Provision for an Adult Child

Contact Us

contact

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

This case study demonstrates the successful application of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 to secure reasonable financial provision for an adult child, Sarah (anonymised), who was excluded from her father’s Will despite a decade of caregiving and financial need. The claim focused on establishing Sarah’s financial dependence and the deceased’s moral obligation to provide for her ongoing maintenance. By leveraging specialist legal authority and empathetic presentation of the facts, the claim resulted in a substantial out-of-court settlement of £150,000, achieving fairness and financial security for the claimant.

case study

Anonymised Case Study

The law surrounding Wills and inheritance can often feel impersonal and cold, but at its heart, it addresses deeply personal issues of fairness, dependency, and moral obligation. When a Will fails to reflect these realities, the legal system provides a vital route to justice.

One of the most powerful avenues for seeking provision when unfairly excluded is through a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act). This Act allows specific categories of people to claim “reasonable financial provision” from an estate, regardless of the Will’s terms.

We specialise in transforming feelings of injustice into tangible results. This case study, while anonymised to protect client confidentiality, powerfully illustrates how the 1975 Act can secure essential financial provision for an adult child whose contributions and needs were unjustly ignored.

The Background: A Decade of Dedication

The Deceased (Mr. J): A retired widower with a modest estate valued at approximately £600,000, consisting primarily of his residential property and modest savings.

The Claimant (Sarah, anonymised): Mr. J’s only daughter. Following the death of her mother (Mr. J’s wife) ten years prior, Sarah moved back into her childhood home to become Mr. J’s primary caregiver. Over the decade, Sarah’s caring responsibilities increased as Mr. J’s health declined. She was unable to maintain consistent full-time employment, relying significantly on her father for housing and utilities, and receiving only a small, infrequent allowance for her time. She currently worked part-time and had very limited savings.

The Will: Shortly before his death, Mr. J executed a new Will leaving the entire estate to a national charity. No reason was provided in the Will for excluding Sarah. The Will was otherwise valid and not challenged on grounds of capacity or undue influence.

The Initial Conflict: Right vs. Reality

Sarah was left out of her father’s Will after caring for him for 10 years. Upon discovering the Will, Sarah was understandably devastated and felt a profound sense of betrayal. Her immediate concern was two-fold: the injustice of being overlooked after years of dedication, and the terrifying reality that she was now homeless and financially vulnerable. That’s where the heart of law comes in.

The Legal Strategy: Leveraging the 1975 Act

When a Will is valid but unfair, the 1975 Act provides the legal framework to seek remedy. For an adult child, the claim is challenging because the law does not automatically guarantee inheritance. The claim must prove two key elements:

Element 1: Eligibility and Application of Section 1(1)(c)

Sarah, as the deceased’s daughter, was automatically an eligible applicant under Section 1(1)(c) of the 1975 Act.

Element 2: Establishing “Reasonable Financial Provision”

For an adult child claimant, the court determines if the Will fails to make “such provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for their maintenance.”

The claim was meticulously built around the factors the court is required to consider under Section 3 of the 1975 Act:

  1. Financial Needs and Resources (Sarah’s Need): We established that Sarah’s limited part-time income and lack of savings meant she desperately needed funds to secure her own independent, modest accommodation and achieve financial stability.
  2. Moral Obligation (Mr. J’s Duty): This was the cornerstone of the case. We argued that Mr. J had a clear and overwhelming moral obligation to provide for Sarah due to her decade of unpaid, dedicated caregiving. This care allowed Mr. J to remain comfortably at home and saved the estate considerable expenditure on professional care services.
  3. Size and Nature of the Estate: The $\textsterling 600,000$ estate was large enough to meet Sarah’s needs without wholly undermining the charitable legacy.

The Urgency of Action: Securing the Claim

The Executor (a professional firm appointed by the charity) was notified immediately via a Letter of Claim. Crucially, a Caveat (a preventative measure used before probate is granted — it stops the process temporarily while disputes are reviewed) was lodged at the Probate Registry to prevent the Grant of Probate from being issued, thereby pausing the crucial six-month deadline for the Inheritance Act claim.

This swift action served two purposes:

  • It prevented the Executor from distributing assets to the charity, which would have made recovery exceptionally difficult.
  • It demonstrated the seriousness and immediate intent to pursue the claim, forcing the Executor to engage with the dispute promptly.

The Resolution: $\textsterling 150,000$ Settlement

Given the compelling evidence of Sarah’s decade of dependence and moral claim, the Executor’s legal team acknowledged the significant risk of going to trial. A judge would likely view the exclusion of the caregiver daughter in favour of a charity as unreasonable, particularly where the daughter was left homeless.

Instead of facing the expense and uncertainty of the High Court, the parties agreed to attend a Mediation session.

During mediation, we successfully negotiated a settlement that secured $\textsterling 150,000$ for Sarah. This sum was calculated to cover the costs of a modest property deposit, necessary furnishings, and a reserve fund to support Sarah while she upskilled and increased her working hours, meeting the legal definition of provision for her “maintenance.”

The settlement was formalised, allowing the Executor to safely distribute the remaining estate (over $\textsterling 400,000$) to the charity, and allowing Sarah to finally secure her future.

The True Benefit: Dignity and Closure

The true success was not just the monetary sum but the closure it provided. Sarah felt vindicated that her years of dedication had been acknowledged. She was empowered to move forward with dignity and financial security, without the continuing strain of legal warfare.

This case serves as a powerful reminder: the 1975 Act exists precisely for these situations—where the literal words of a Will contradict a clear moral and financial obligation. If you are an adult child who has been unfairly excluded, particularly when a relationship of dependency or substantial caregiving existed, specialist legal intervention can secure the financial provision you are entitled to.

Don’t Let Injustice Stand

The journey Sarah undertook highlights the necessity of expert guidance in navigating the 1975 Act. Her success was built on empathetic client support combined with the authoritative application of the law, all executed with critical urgency.

If you recognise aspects of Sarah’s story in your own situation—feeling unjustly excluded despite years of care or financial dependence, you have rights that the law can uphold. Don’t let the complexity of the legal system or the fear of family conflict prevent you from securing the provision you need to survive and thrive.

Read our guide: The Emotional Toll of Contesting a Will and How to Cope: Legal Grounds and When Not to Contest a Will to help you cope with the emotional toll of this process, maintain family relationships, and understand your legal grounds.

Are you ready to discover if your circumstances warrant a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975? Contact us today for a confidential, no-obligation assessment of your case and take the first step toward securing your fair resolution. Call 08002980029 or visit contestawilltoday.com

FAQs

1. Does receiving social security or state benefits weaken an Inheritance Act claim?

No, not necessarily. The court is required to consider the claimant’s current and future financial resources and needs. If a claimant relies on state benefits, this is taken as compelling evidence of their financial need. The success of the claim would be judged on whether the estate could reasonably provide a lump sum or income stream to alleviate that dependency and support the claimant’s maintenance, thereby strengthening the argument that the Will failed to provide reasonable financial provision.

2. Is there a distinction between “maintenance” and “inheritance” for adult children under the 1975 Act?

Yes, this is a critical distinction. For spouses, the court can award them what they would have reasonably expected to receive on divorce (which is often a large share of the estate). For an adult child, however, the provision is strictly limited to what is required for their maintenance—i.e., money to cover the necessary expenses of living, such as housing, utilities, and essential training. The court will not generally award an adult child a portion purely for enrichment or lifestyle improvement.

3. If I was financially maintained by the deceased, does the claim only cover my past costs?

No. A successful Inheritance Act claim covers provision for your future maintenance. While evidence of past maintenance (e.g., the deceased paying your rent or utilities) is essential to demonstrate the relationship of dependency and the deceased’s moral obligation, the resulting award (the lump sum or periodic payments) is calculated based on what you need to meet your reasonable financial needs going forward.

contact

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

Frequently asked questions.

Disputes over wills can arise in several circumstances, including:

  • Testamentary capacity: The person who made the will (known as the testator) must have had the mental capacity to understand what they were doing and the consequences of their actions. This means that they must have been able to understand the nature and extent of their property, the people they were giving their property to, and the people they were excluded from their will.

 

  • Valid execution: The will must have been executed correctly under the law. This means it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • Undue influence: The testator must have made the will freely and without any pressure from others. The will may be invalid if someone was unduly influenced to make a will. Undue influence can occur when someone takes advantage of a testator’s vulnerability, such as if the testator is elderly, ill, or has a mental disability.

 

  • Fraud or forgery: If the will was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will, the will may be invalid.

 

Claims against a will must usually be made within six months of the grant of probate being issued. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate. If a claim is not made within this time, it may be too late to challenge the will.

As such, executors often wait until this six-month period has expired before distributing the estate. This is to avoid having to distribute the estate and then having to take it back if a successful claim is made against the will.

Here are some examples of how these disputes can arise:

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will. For example, if the testator was suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease at the time the will was made.
  •  

A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was not executed correctly. For example, if the will is not signed by the testator or if it is not witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that they were unduly influenced to make the will. For example, if a caregiver or another family member pressured the testator to make the will in their favour.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will. For example, if someone forged the testator’s signature on the will or if someone lied to the testator about the contents of the will.

If you are thinking about disputing a will, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.



Types of Trusts

Many different types of trusts can be set up, depending on your specific needs and goals. Some of the most common types of trusts include:
Bare Trusts: A bare trust is a simple type of trust in which the trustee holds the assets for the benefit of the beneficiary. The beneficiary is entitled to the income and capital of the trust as soon as they are old enough to receive them.

Interest in Possession Trusts: An interest in possession trust is a type of trust in which the beneficiary is entitled to the income from the trust immediately, but not to the capital until a later date. This type of trust is often used for minor beneficiaries or for beneficiaries who are not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

Discretionary Trusts: A discretionary trust is a type of trust in which the trustee has the discretion to decide how and when to distribute the income and capital of the trust to the beneficiaries. This type of trust is often used for families with multiple beneficiaries or beneficiaries with special needs.

Accumulation Trusts: An accumulation trust is a type of trust in which the income from the trust is accumulated and not distributed to the beneficiaries until a later date. This type of trust is often used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

Mixed Trusts: A mixed trust is a type of trust that combines elements of different types of trusts. For example, a trust may be a discretionary trust for one beneficiary and an interest in possession trust for another beneficiary.

Settlor-Interested Trusts: A settlor-interested trust is a type of trust in which the settlor (the person who creates the trust) retains some interest in the trust assets. For example, the settlor may retain the right to receive income from the trust or to appoint the trustee.

Non-Resident Trusts: A non-resident trust is a type of trust that is created and governed by the laws of a country other than the country where the settlor or beneficiaries reside.
Which type of trust is right for you will depend on your specific needs and goals. It is important to consult with an estate planning attorney to discuss your options and choose the type of trust that is best for you.
Here are some examples of how different types of trusts can be used:
A bare trust can be used to hold assets for a minor child until they reach the age of majority.

An interest in possession trust can be used to provide income to a beneficiary who is not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

A discretionary trust can be used to manage assets for a family with multiple beneficiaries or for beneficiaries with special needs.

An accumulation trust can be used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

A mixed trust can be used to achieve a variety of different goals, such as providing income to one beneficiary and preserving capital for another beneficiary.

A settlor-interested trust can be used to retain some control over trust assets after the settlor has created the trust.

A non-resident trust can be used to reduce estate taxes or to protect assets from creditors.
It is important to note that this is just a brief overview of the different types of trusts. There are many other types of trusts available, and each type of trust has its own specific features and benefits. For more information please visit www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/types-of-trust

Inheritance trust disputes can be complex and varied, but some common scenarios include:

  • Disputes over the validity of the trust: This can happen if the settlor (the person who created the trust) does not have the mental capacity to create a trust, or if the trust deed was not executed correctly.

 

  • Disputes over the interpretation of the trust deed: If the trust deed is poorly drafted or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • Disputes over the appointment or removal of trustees: Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee is not acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may apply to the court to have the trustee removed.

 

  • Disputes over the investment of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to invest trust assets prudently. If a trustee makes investments that are too risky or that lose money, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

  • Disputes over the distribution of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to distribute trust assets to the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. If a trustee distributes trust assets incorrectly, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

Here are some specific examples of inheritance trust disputes that have occurred in the UK:

  • In one case, a beneficiary disputed the validity of a trust deed on the grounds that the settlor (the person who created the trust) did not have the mental capacity to create a trust at the time it was set up.

 

  • In another case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees made a number of risky investments that lost money.



  • In a third case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees distributed trust assets to the beneficiaries in a way that was not in accordance with the terms of the trust deed.

 

Other possible disputes include:

  • A beneficiary was expecting more than what is set out in the trust document. This may be because the beneficiary had a reasonable belief that they would receive more, or because the trust document is unclear about the beneficiary’s entitlement.

 

  • The individual who set up the trust was provided with negligent or misleading advice. If the settlor was not properly advised about the consequences of setting up a trust, or if they were given incorrect information, they may be able to challenge the trust.

 

  • The trust document is either incomplete or unclear about the wishes of the deceased. If the trust document is incomplete or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • A trustee acts against the best interests of the beneficiary or doesn’t administer the trust correctly. Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee breaches their duty, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee.

If you are involved in an inheritance trust dispute, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

Contesting a will is challenging the validity of a will. This can be done on a number of grounds, including.

  • The testator (the person who made the will) did not have the mental capacity to make a will.
  • The will was not executed correctly, i.e., it was not signed by the testator or witnessed by two independent witnesses.
  • The testator was unduly influenced to make the will.
  • The will was forged or fraudulent.

 

Contentious probate is any dispute about the administration of a deceased person’s estate. This can include disputes about

  • The validity of the will.
  • The interpretation of the will.
  • The appointment or removal of executors.
  • The distribution of the estate assets.
  • The management of the estate.
  • In the UK, contentious probate is dealt with by the High Court.

 

The main difference between contesting a will and contentious probate is that contesting a will is specifically challenging the validity of the will, while contentious probate can include a wide range of disputes about the administration of an estate.

Here is an example:

Contesting a will: A beneficiary challenges the validity of a will on the grounds that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will.

Contentious probate: A beneficiary disputes the interpretation of a will and argues that they are entitled to a larger share of the estate than they have been given.

It is important to note that the two terms are often used interchangeably. For example, a lawyer might say that they are “dealing with a contentious probate matter” when they are actually challenging the validity of a will.

If you are thinking about contesting a will or pursuing a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

The time limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK is six months from the grant of probate. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate.

If you do not make your claim within this six-month time limit, you may need to apply to the court for permission to make a late claim. The court will only grant permission if you have a good reason for not making your claim on time.

There are a number of factors that the court will consider when deciding whether to grant permission for a late claim, including:

  • Why did you not make your claim on time?
  • The strength of your case.
  • Whether the other beneficiaries will be prejudiced if your claim is allowed to proceed.
  • If the court grants you permission to make a late claim, you will need to file your claim within 28 days.

 

It is important to note that there are some exceptions to the six-month time limit. For example, if the executor has committed fraud or concealed assets from the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may be able to make a claim after the six-month time limit has expired.

If you are thinking about making a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. A lawyer can assess your case and advise you on the time limits that apply and whether you have a good case.

Here are some examples of when you might be able to make a late contentious probate claim:

  • You were not aware of the death of the deceased until after the six-month time limit had expired.
  • You were unable to make your claim on time because you were ill or incapacitated.
  • The executor has deliberately concealed information from you about the estate.
  • The executor has committed fraud in the administration of the estate.

 

The 12-year limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK applies to claims for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. This means that if you are making a claim for financial provision from an estate, you must do so within 12 years of the date of the deceased’s death.

The reason for the 12-year limit is to encourage people to make their claims as soon as possible after the deceased’s death. This is because it can become more difficult to investigate and prove a claim after a long period of time has elapsed.

If you are unsure whether you are able to make a late contentious probate claim, you should seek legal advice.

Most disputes in the UK are resolved out of court through mediation and negotiation. This is because it is generally faster, cheaper, and less stressful for all involved.

If you are considering disputing a will, it is important to contact a contentious probate specialist before you involve any other relatives or beneficiaries of the estate. A specialist lawyer can advise you on your legal options and help you to resolve the dispute quickly and efficiently.

Here are some of the benefits of resolving a will dispute out of court:

  • It is faster and cheaper than going to court.
  • It is less stressful for all involved.
  • It allows you to maintain relationships with other family members and beneficiaries.
  • You have more control over the outcome of the dispute.

 

There are a number of steps that you can take to try to resolve a contentious probate dispute without going to court, including

  • Negotiation: You can try to negotiate a settlement with the other parties to the dispute. This may involve making concessions on your part, but it can be a good way to avoid the time and expense of court proceedings.
  • Mediation: Mediation is a process where an independent mediator helps the parties to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Mediation can be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court, but it is important to note that it is not binding on the parties.
  • Arbitration: Arbitration is a more formal process than mediation, and it is binding on the parties. However, it can still be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court.

 

If you are unable to resolve the dispute amicably, you will need to file a claim with the High Court. The court will then hold a hearing to decide the case.

Contact our Team

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

email Us

News and Insights