A run of recent cases has seen adult children increasingly succeed in inheritance claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. From commemorative coins to cosmetic surgery and family estrangement, Vlad Macdonald-Munteanu, contentious trusts and probate partner at Aaron & Partners, examines what courts now consider to be “something more” when deciding whether to amend the terms of a will.
The shifting landscape of adult child claims
When 74-year-old David Isaacs was left nothing in his mother’s will, he took the matter to court, and ended up walking away with £150,000 – 25% of her residuary estate.
The High Court’s decision in the recent Isaacs v Green [2025] adds to a growing body of judgments that are quietly reshaping how courts interpret the 1975 Act, particularly for adult children.
Historically, adult child claims under the 1975 Act were difficult to win. Judges were reluctant to undermine testamentary freedom, and early authorities such as Re Coventry [1980] made it clear that financial need alone just was not enough. Claimants needed to show a “moral claim”; a vague and contentious phrase that became the subject of debate for many years.
Then came the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017]. In that case, Lord Hughes clarified that a “moral claim” wasn’t a legal requirement. Instead, he said, there must be ‘something more’ beyond financial need and a parent-child relationship – a phrase that has since become the new benchmark, though its meaning remains open to interpretation.
However, recent cases suggest we’re beginning to understand what that “something more” looks like.
Examples of ‘something more’ in successful adult child claims
Isaacs v Green [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)
David Isaacs was initially excluded from his mother’s will. But the court found that her reasons related to concerns over his divorce and potential financial exposure, not a poor relationship. This was enough to amount to “something more”, and he was awarded £150,000 – 25% of her residuary estate.
Crucially, Isaacs lived modestly in his mother’s home, shared with a sister who did not oppose the claim. And in an unusual twist, the court included his £450 monthly spend on commemorative coins and stamps in his maintenance needs – highlighting just how personalised the court’s approach can be.
Howe v Howe [2025] unreported
Here, an adult daughter received £125,000 from her pirate radio engineer father’s £1.4m estate despite their estrangement. The court accepted that her financial difficulties and poor health were rooted in childhood neglect.
Controversially, the court’s award included legal fees from a failed will challenge and even the cost of breast implants – again suggesting a broad interpretation of what qualifies as maintenance under the 1975 Act.
Fennessy v Turner [2022] WTLR 1295
The court awarded £195,000 to an adult son after finding that his mother had made previous assurances he would inherit everything. These unrevoked promises helped establish a moral obligation, particularly given the claimant’s disability and housing needs.
Rochford v Rochford [2021] unreported
An adult daughter was awarded £85,000 on top of the £25,000 left to her in her father’s will, despite a strained relationship and home ownership. The judge found she had done all she could to stay in contact – satisfying the “something more” test – and disapproved of the defendant’s aggressive litigation tactics.
Higgins v Morgan [2021] EWHC 2846 (Ch)
A stepson successfully claimed £40,800 (plus part of his legal fees) after proving he had a close bond with his stepfather, who had promised to leave him part of the estate. This moral obligation was upheld, though recent case law now prohibits the inclusion of success fees as part of a financial award (see Hirachand v Hirachand [2024] UKSC 43).
Where claims fail
When adult child claims fail, it’s often because the claimant cannot demonstrate financial need – let alone “something more”.
In Batstone v Batstone [2022], a 15-year estrangement and above-average income undermined the claimant’s case. Similarly, in Miles v Shearer [2021], two adult daughters failed to convince the court they had a moral right to a share of their wealthy father’s estate, despite their previous privileged lifestyle.
And in Wellesey v Wellesey [2019], the eldest daughter of the 7th Earl of Cowley was refused further provision beyond £20,000. Despite low income and a disabled son, the judge found a 30-year estrangement, caused by her conduct and “bohemian lifestyle”, outweighed any claim.
What this means for practitioners
Taken together, these cases suggest three emerging themes:
1. Financial need still matters and judges are far more receptive to “something more” arguments where claimants can show genuine need.
2. Promises and past behaviour count. Where a testator has made assurances or the estrangement wasn’t the claimant’s fault, courts are more inclined to intervene.
3. Maintenance is interpreted broadly, which we can clearly see with coins and breast implants judged as “reasonable financial provision”.
These cases also reinforce the importance of good advice, clear will-writing, and early engagement, both for claimants and those seeking to defend a 1975 Act claim.
About the author
Vlad Macdonald‑Munteanu is a partner in the Contentious Trusts and Probate team at Aaron & Partners. He specialises in high‑value contentious probate and 1975 Act claims, advising clients on complex inheritance disputes. Vlad is ranked in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for his commercial, empathetic and strategically focused approach.
