Inheritance Act claims in high net worth estates: Financial provision beyond need

Inheritance Act claims are not limited to those in financial hardship. In high net worth estates, courts increasingly focus on lifestyle, expectations and moral obligations when assessing whether reasonable financial provision has been made. Nicola K Smith explores how wealth, relationships and proportionality influence outcomes, even where claimants are financially secure.

One of the biggest misconceptions about claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is that they are only brought by people facing financial hardship.

That is not the case.

The courts regularly make awards to claimants who are financially secure, own property, have substantial savings or otherwise appear far removed from financial need. In high-net-worth estates, disputes are often less about financial survival and more about whether the outcome produced by a will is reasonable when viewed in the context of the family’s wealth, lifestyle and relationships.

‘Maintenance’ does not mean poverty

A common misunderstanding arises from the word ‘maintenance’ in the legislation.

Many assume this means the minimum required to avoid destitution, but the courts have repeatedly rejected that approach.

In Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, the Supreme Court confirmed that maintenance is a flexible concept which depends on the facts of the case. It can include housing provision, income needs and broader financial security appropriate to the claimant’s circumstances.

The issue is therefore not simply whether somebody can pay their bills. The court considers whether the provision made by the deceased or lack of provision produces a reasonable result when viewed against the size of the estate, the relationship between the parties and the deceased’s obligations. In high-value estates, the court is often more concerned with fairness, obligations, relationship history and proportionality than mere subsistence.

Why wealth matters

The size and nature of an estate can significantly affect the court’s assessment. Provision that may appear generous in a modest estate could be inadequate in a high-value one. In larger estates, the court will examine factors such as the family’s standard of living, the claimant’s expectations, the extent of the deceased’s wealth, and any obligations owed to the claimant.

It will also consider whether complete exclusion is difficult to justify in light of those factors. This is particularly relevant in wealthy families where spouses, children, or long-term partners may have enjoyed a privileged lifestyle over many years.

Importantly, a claimant does not lose the ability to bring a claim simply because they are financially comfortable.

Why lifestyle matters

Modern case law highlights the importance of lifestyle evidence when assessing claims.

The court will often look at the quality of housing enjoyed during the deceased’s lifetime, access to family wealth, expectations such as private education, and the claimant’s involvement in businesses or family enterprises. It may also consider factors such as regular travel, use of holiday properties, domestic staffing arrangements, and the claimant’s broader social position.

While the court is not obliged to preserve a luxury lifestyle indefinitely, it is often reluctant in substantial estates to impose a dramatic reduction in circumstances where the claimant was clearly maintained at a high standard for many years.

The importance of moral obligations

Increasingly, courts focus not only on financial dependency but also on moral obligation.

Judges will assess whether the deceased failed to meet responsibilities arising from relationships such as marriage, long-term partnerships, parenthood, or established family arrangements. Promises, expectations, and patterns of financial support built up over time can all be relevant.

This explains why financially secure claimants may still succeed: the key question is often not absolute need, but whether the outcome of the will is objectively unreasonable when viewed in context.

What the court considers

Claims by cohabiting partners have taken on greater importance in recent years. Courts now place significant weight on the practical reality of relationships. This includes examining the duration of the relationship, whether the parties functioned as a family unit, and the extent to which finances and domestic responsibilities were shared.

The court may also assess whether the couple presented themselves publicly as partners, as well as the level of mutual commitment and any sacrifices made during the relationship. Housing arrangements and financial integration are particularly important, as is whether the claimant reorganised their life around the deceased.

In high-value estates, the court often considers whether it is reasonable for a long-term partner to be excluded entirely while substantial wealth passes elsewhere.

Awards made to financially secure claimants

Banfield v Campbell [2018] EWHC 1943 (Ch)

In Banfield v Campbell, the claimant brought a claim following the death of his long-term cohabiting partner. Although the estate, worth around £730,000, largely passed to the deceased’s son, the claimant had lived with the deceased for many years and had been left only £5,000 under the will.

Importantly, the claimant was not in financial hardship. He had savings of approximately £277,000 and his income exceeded his annual expenditure. However, the court accepted that reasonable financial provision had not been made for his housing needs following the deceased’s death.

Rather than awarding him an outright capital sum, the court granted him a life interest in half of the net proceeds of sale of the property to assist with rehousing during his lifetime. The case illustrates that even financially secure cohabitants may succeed where the court considers their maintenance needs particularly housing needs arising from a long-term relationship that have not been adequately addressed.

Negus v Bahouse [2008] 1 FLR 381

In Negus v Bahouse, the claimant had been in a relationship with the deceased for nine years, but the deceased’s £2.2 million estate was left entirely to his son.

Despite the claimant not being in financial hardship, the court awarded her the mortgage-free transfer of the flat she had shared with the deceased, valued at approximately £400,000, together with a further lump sum of £240,000. The award was intended to allow her to maintain a standard of living broadly comparable to that enjoyed during the deceased’s lifetime.

The decision demonstrates that, in appropriate cases, reasonable financial provision may extend well beyond basic subsistence, particularly in the context of substantial estates and long-term cohabiting relationships.

A fact-sensitive area of litigation

Not every disappointed beneficiary of a substantial estate will have a viable claim. Inheritance Act claims remain highly fact-sensitive, and outcomes will always depend on the circumstances of the case.

The court will carefully assess factors such as the claimant’s financial position, the needs of other beneficiaries, the nature and history of the relationship with the deceased, and the overall proportionality of any award sought.

The existence of significant wealth within an estate does not, in itself, justify a claim. The central question remains whether the will (or intestacy) has failed to make reasonable financial provision when viewed in the round.