In our previous blog, we discussed how one can make a claim against the estate if he/she has been left out of a Will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act).
The Court will consider the matters set out in section 3 of the 1975 Act when making a decision, and that includes:
‘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’.
If the relationship between the applicant and the deceased falls within this matter, would their estrangement negatively affect the merits of the applicant’s case?
Howe v Howe [2025]
Background
Jenna Howe, the Claimant, was the only child of Roger Howe, who was a pirate radio legend who died on 27 March 2020. The Claimant was not named in the deceased’s Will dated 4 July 2017 (Will) as the deceased made clear on a number of occasions that he viewed the Claimant as ‘lazy’, ‘useless’, ‘lying’ and ‘druggy’ and did not wish her to inherit his wealth of some £1.4 million. The deceased left his wealth to his mother, his sister, and his two nephews.
The Claimant initially claimed to set aside the Will and alleged that the signature of an attesting witness had been forged. Following some challenges she faced in supporting her claim and adducing further evidence, she withdrew the probate claim and agreed to pay the executors’ costs in the sum of £42,000 (Costs Order). She then brought a claim against the estate under the 1975 Act seeking around £440k.
The deceased’s executors assigned the Costs Order to a company to enforce. In the appeal judgment of the case of Howe v Leck Holdings Ltd [2024], which was discussed in our previous blog, the Court set aside the statutory demand and decided that the company was not able to enforce the Costs Order pending the determination of the Claimant’s 1975 Act claim.
The Claimant’s 1975 Act claim proceeded to trial and was tried in January 2025.
Decision
The Court held that:
- Despite the fact that the Claimant had been estranged from the deceased for a long time, the Court considered the Claimant’s health needs as a significant factor for making financial provision for the Claimant as they prevented her from working and resulted from the deceased’s strained and volatile behaviour during the Claimant’s upbringing;
- The estate was financially capable of covering the Court’s proposed award to the Claimant;
- The estate should pay for the Claimant’s debts, white goods, health needs, and income shortfall for 10 years, totalling £125k, which factored in the Costs Order; and
- The award to the Claimant was to be held on discretionary trust to preserve the Claimant’s entitlement to the benefits and prevent her from spending the money unwisely.
Comment
This case and the case of Ilott v Mitson [2017] show that an estranged adult child successfully claiming against the estate under the 1975 Act is no longer a dream as long as he/she can prove a legitimate need. Also, the conduct of the applicant, like in this case the Claimant being subjected to the Costs Order and convicted for the harassment of one of the executors of the estate, would be considered minor factors that did not negatively affect the merits of his/her case.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us