Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) are often viewed as a safety net where a Will appears unfair. However, not all claims succeed. Understanding why is critical, both for those considering a claim and for those defending one.
The 1975 Act allows certain categories of people, including spouses, children and dependants, to apply to the Court where a Will (or intestacy) does not make “reasonable financial provision” for them. In doing so, an applicant seeks that the Court make an order to meet their reasonable maintenance needs or, in a spouse’s application, a financial provision that is reasonable in the circumstances.
In considering an applicant’s claim, the Court applies a structured test, considering factors such as the applicant’s financial needs and resources, the size of the estate and any obligations the deceased owed to them. Whilst an award is often made, there are many cases which fail whereby the Court conclude on consideration of the factors it is not reasonable for the Estate to award the applicant a financial provision.
The recent case of Hodgson v Hodgson[1] provides a clear illustration of an unsuccessful claim. The Claimant was one of two children. Her father’s Will left his estate to his wife (the Claimant’s mother), with gifts to the children only if the mother had predeceased him. After the father’s death, the Claimant brought a claim under the 1975 Act seeking provision from the estate, alongside other claims.
On considering the claim, the Court found that the Will was unambiguous. The father’s estate passed entirely to the mother because she survived him. The gifts to the Claimant were contingent and did not take effect. This meant that the Claimant had no immediate entitlement under the will and the Court approached the claim on the basis that the mother now held the estate. The Court was then required to apply the factors set out in the 1975 Act.
The Claimant’s claim ultimately failed because she could not establish that the Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance.
The court found:
- The Claimant was financially self-sufficient, earning an income and covering her outgoings;
- The Claimant had no significant unmet financial needs; and
- The Claimant was better off financially after her father’s death.
Accordingly, there was no basis for concluding she required maintenance from the estate.
The Court reinforced a key principle: adult children are not entitled to an inheritance simply because they expected one. The Act provides for maintenance only, not capital windfalls or reallocation of family assets.
It was further noted that the mother, as surviving spouse, was the primary beneficiary and had her own financial needs. The structure of the will, leaving everything to the surviving spouse, was a familiar and legitimate testamentary choice. The Court considered it would therefore be inappropriate to undermine that intention absent a clear need on the Claimant’s part.
The Claimant also advanced proprietary estoppel arguments, but these claims also failed (largely due to lack of reliance and detriment). The court accepted only a general understanding that the Claimant might inherit in the future, not a binding promise affecting the outcome.
This left the 1975 Act claim to stand on its own and it was insufficient.
Key takeaways
- Need is central: Adult children must show real financial need. Expectation alone is not enough.
- Maintenance not inheritance: The Act provides support, not equality or fairness in asset division.
- Clear Wills matter: Where a will is unambiguous, particularly leaving everything to a spouse, it will be difficult to challenge.
- Competing beneficiaries count: Courts are slow to interfere with provision for a surviving spouse.
- Alternative claims won’t rescue a weak case: If reliance and detriment cannot be shown, estoppel-type arguments will not assist.
Hodgson demonstrates that even long-standing involvement in family property and expectations of inheritance will not succeed without clear evidence of financial need and entitlement under the statutory framework.
[1] [2026] EWHC 922 (Ch)
How can we help?
Stuart Parris is a Senior Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you have any queries relating to the above subject, please contact Stuart or a member of our Dispute Resolution team, who will be able to assist you. Please call 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.