In McDaniel v Talbot, the court applied the same established principles from Ilott, the leading case for claims by adult children under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Barny Croft, partner and head of charity legacy disputes at Birketts, explains the impact of both cases on future claims.
Claims by adult children under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 remain one of the most difficult areas of contentious probate.
In 2017, the Supreme Court handed down the leading judgment in the case of Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17. Nearly 10 years later, the factually similar case of McDaniel v Talbot [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch) provides an interesting comparison to the Ilott decision.
Both cases involve estranged adult children bringing claims for reasonable financial provision. Taken together, they provide important and consistent guidance on the circumstances in which the court will intervene and, crucially, how much it will award.
The legal framework: Reasonable financial provision
Under the 1975 Act, adult children are only entitled to claim financial provision for their maintenance.
The court therefore asks two core questions: Did the will fail to make reasonable financial provision? If so, what provision is required for the claimant’s maintenance?
This is a narrow and fact-sensitive exercise, not an attempt to achieve fairness or rewrite the will.
Ilott v Mitson (2017): The leading authority
In Ilott v Mitson, the Supreme Court considered a claim by an adult daughter who had been estranged from her mother for over 25 years.
The estate was worth around £486,000 and the claimant lived modestly and relied on state benefits. The will left the estate to animal charities and excluded the claimant entirely.
The Supreme Court upheld a modest award of £50,000, reinstating the district judge’s decision.
There are four key points to be learned from Ilott. Awards to adult children are limited to maintenance, not capital provision; the court must respect testamentary freedom as a starting point; long estrangement significantly weakens the claim; and awards may be structured to preserve means‑tested benefits.
Overall, Ilott confirmed a conservative approach, with tightly controlled awards even where financial need is clear.
McDaniel v Talbot (2026): Applying the same principles
In McDaniel v Talbot, the High Court revisited these issues in a more factually sympathetic case:
The claimant had been estranged from her father from infancy, but they reconciled in 2019 and developed a close relationship. The estate was worth approximately £1.75 million, and the will left everything to the surviving spouse.
The court found that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision and awarded £123,418.47 – a modest proportion of the estate.
The claimant’s circumstances were significant. She had limited financial means, an ongoing reliance on benefits, and substantial caring responsibilities for two disabled children.
Key comparison: What do these cases tell us?
When viewed side-by-side, the cases illustrate four key points.
Reconciliation matters – to an extent: The most obvious distinction is the relationship between parent and child. In Ilott, estrangement persisted until death. In McDaniel, there was genuine reconciliation shortly before death.
The court in McDaniel accepted that this weakened the rationale for exclusion. However, it did not justify a substantial award.
Financial need remains the central test: In both cases, the claimants were in clear financial difficulty. They both relied on benefits, they both had limited earning capacity, and they both had family responsibilities. That meant they both had good maintenance claims, but their even strong needs did not lead to large awards.
Awards remain modest, even in large estates: A striking feature is the proportional outcome. In Ilott, the claimant received an award of £50,000 from an estate worth c.£486,000 – 10% of the value of the estate.
In McDaniel, the claimant received an award of £123,418 from an estate worth around £1.75 million – 7% of the value of the estate.
Despite the larger estate in McDaniel, the award remained deliberately limited, which reflects the court’s reluctance to interfere with the testator’s intentions beyond what maintenance strictly requires.
Testamentary freedom still carries significant weight: Both decisions emphasise that the court’s role is corrective, not redistributive. The 1975 Act operates as a limited exception to testamentary freedom, not a mechanism for achieving fairness.
In McDaniel, the court intervened despite an express exclusion clause – but only to the extent necessary to meet maintenance needs.
Established principles
While McDaniel v Talbot is factually more sympathetic than Ilott v Mitson, it does not represent any departure from established principles.
Instead, it reinforces that adult children must demonstrate real financial need and claims are confined to maintenance, whatever the size of the estate.
Awards will typically be modest and carefully calibrated, and the court will not override testamentary freedom beyond what is strictly necessary.
For claimants and defendants alike, the message is clear: reasonable financial provision claims remain difficult to win – and even harder to win big.
About the author
Barny Croft joined as a partner in Birketts’ Private Wealth Disputes team in June 2025. His work covers will disputes on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, lack of knowledge and approval, fraud and failure to execute a will correctly; professional negligence claims; disputes concerning the lack of provision made for family and/or dependants in wills; proprietary estoppel claims; trust disputes; claims concerning the administration of estates; and advising executors and trustees in complex trusts and/or estates. He has been recognised for many years as an expert in legacy and trust disputes and is one of the leading advisers to charities in relation to legacy disputes.
