Challenge a Parent’s Will on a No Win No Fee Basis: What Courts Mean by “Something More”
Being left out of a parent’s Will is painful. Learning that a sibling received everything, or that your parent left their estate to charity, can feel like a final rejection. But it does not always mean you have no legal recourse. The law gives adult children the right to challenge a parent’s Will under the Inheritance Act 1975 — and specialist solicitors can take these cases on a no win no fee basis, so you do not need to pay anything upfront to find out where you stand.
Disinherited by a Parent – Can You Challenge the Will?
Potentially yes. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, an adult child of the deceased can apply to the court for reasonable financial provision from the estate. This right is set out in section 1(1)(c) of the Act, and it applies regardless of your age.
You do not need to have been named in the Will. You do not need to have been financially dependent on your parent. You simply need to show that the Will (or the rules of intestacy, if there was no Will) did not make reasonable financial provision for you.
However, and this is critical, the test for what counts as “reasonable” is stricter for adult children than it is for a surviving spouse or civil partner. That distinction matters enormously, and understanding it is the first step toward knowing whether you have a viable claim.
What Does the Inheritance Act 1975 Say About Adult Child Claims?
For a surviving spouse or civil partner, the court asks a broad question: what would be reasonable in all the circumstances, with no upper limit?
For an adult child, the standard is narrower. The court will only award what is reasonably needed for your maintenance. That does not mean bare survival – it includes a reasonable standard of living, but it does mean the court is not there to provide a windfall or to redistribute your parent’s estate simply because you feel you deserved more.
In practice, this means a successful adult child claim typically results in a specific sum or provision designed to meet a genuine financial need, not an equal share of the estate.
The “Something More” Requirement
This is where most adult child claims are won or lost.
The leading case is Re Coventry [1980], which established a principle that has shaped every adult child claim since: being a child of the deceased is not, by itself, enough. You must show “something more” — some additional factor or combination of factors that makes it unreasonable for the Will to have left you without provision.
Mere blood relationship, on its own, will not get you over the line. Nor will a feeling of moral entitlement, however deeply held. The court needs concrete reasons why the deceased’s choices should be overridden.
So what does count as “something more”?
Factors That Can Strengthen a Claim
- Financial dependence. If you were financially dependent on your parent during their lifetime: for example, they helped you with housing costs, paid bills, or provided regular financial support — the court may find it unreasonable for that support to have been cut off entirely at death.
- Contributions to the deceased’s business or household. If you worked in a family business without proper pay, or gave up your career to manage your parent’s household, these contributions can weigh heavily in your favour.
- Caring responsibilities. If you provided significant care for your parent, especially over a long period or at personal cost, this is exactly the kind of factor that courts treat as “something more.”
- Promises or assurances. If your parent told you that you would be provided for, and you relied on those promises (for example, by not making your own financial provision), this can support your claim.
- Particular vulnerability. If you have a disability, serious illness, caring responsibilities for your own children, or other circumstances that make you particularly financially vulnerable, the court will take this into account.
- A close and loving relationship. While this alone may not be sufficient, a strong relationship with the deceased, combined with other factors, can help demonstrate that the deceased had an obligation to provide for you.
What Is Not Enough on Its Own
- Simply being the deceased’s child.
- Being estranged, without more.
- Feeling that the Will was unfair or that you were morally entitled to a share.
- Being financially comfortable and independent.
Recent cases illustrate how strictly the courts apply this. In Batstone v Batstone [2022], an adult child’s claim was dismissed for failure to demonstrate a proven maintenance need or any sufficient “something more” beyond the parent-child relationship. In Miles v Shearer [2021], the claim failed because the claimant had not established additional factors beyond being a child of the deceased. And in Wellesley v Wellesley [2019] involving the 7th Earl Cowley’s estate of approximately 1.3 million pounds, the court held that the claimant, who had received a legacy of 20,000 pounds, could not show the kind of maintenance need or compelling factor that would justify a larger award.
The message is clear: testamentary freedom means the court will not redistribute an estate simply because the outcome feels unfair.
What the Recent Cases Show
The case law over the past decade provides a clear picture of what succeeds and what fails.
Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017], Supreme Court
This is one of the most significant adult child claims to reach the Supreme Court. Heather Ilott had been estranged from her mother, Melita Jackson, since leaving home to live with and marry her husband, of whom her mother disapproved. Her mother left her entire estate — worth approximately 486,000 pounds — to animal charities. Mrs Ilott was living in straitened circumstances, in rented accommodation financed almost entirely through housing and council tax benefit.
After a protracted legal journey involving no fewer than five appeals over nearly a decade, the Supreme Court ultimately reinstated the original trial judge’s award of 50,000 pounds. Mrs Ilott’s financial need was the decisive factor, but the court emphasised that the principle of testamentary freedom and the interests of the chosen charity beneficiaries both weighed against a larger award.
Key takeaway: Even significant financial need does not guarantee a large award. The court balanced Mrs Ilott’s circumstances against her mother’s clearly expressed wishes and the interests of the charity beneficiaries.
Howe v Howe [2025]
In this more recent case, Jenna Howe, an estranged adult daughter, successfully claimed against the estate of her father, Roger Howe, a former pirate radio engineer who died in 2020 after falling from a window. The estate was valued at approximately 1.4 million pounds. Roger’s Will, dated 4 July 2017, explicitly excluded Jenna, describing her in disparaging terms, and left everything to his mother, sister, and two nephews. Jenna sought 450,000 pounds but was awarded 125,000 pounds on a discretionary trust.
The court accepted that her father’s neglect during her adolescence contributed to her later difficulties, and the award was structured to cover debts, essential purchases, health needs, and an income shortfall over ten years. Notably, the court rejected Jenna’s claim for accommodation assistance because her housing was already funded by the local authority – the court would not duplicate provision already being met by public funding.
Key takeaway: Even where there is long-term estrangement and the deceased deliberately disinherited the claimant, the court may still intervene where genuine financial need can be linked to the circumstances of the relationship. However, the award may be significantly less than the amount claimed, and the court will not provide for needs already met by public services.
Nahajec v Fowle [2017]
This case is factually similar to Ilott. An adult child’s claim succeeded where the claimant had been estranged from the deceased but could demonstrate genuine financial need. The estate was worth approximately 265,000 pounds, and the court awarded 30,000 pounds.
Key takeaway: Even in modest estates, the court may make a targeted award where the claimant’s financial vulnerability is clear and the Will has produced an unreasonable result.
Isaacs v Green [2025]
In this January 2025 case, David Isaacs, aged 74, successfully claimed against his mother’s estate despite having been completely excluded from her Will. The court awarded him 25% of the residuary estate (approximately 150,000 pounds). The case demonstrated that even at an advanced age, an adult child can succeed where genuine financial need and other relevant factors are present.
Key takeaway: Complete exclusion from a Will does not prevent a successful claim. Age and financial need remain powerful factors, and the court will look at the full picture when deciding whether the Will made reasonable provision.
Fennessy v Turner [2022]
Patrick Neil Fennessy, an adult son, succeeded in his claim against his mother’s estate. He had a disability and significant financial vulnerability, which the court found made it unreasonable for the Will to leave him without provision. He was awarded £177,500.
Key takeaway: Disability and financial vulnerability remain powerful factors. The court will intervene where a claimant’s particular circumstances make it unreasonable for the Will to have left them without adequate provision.
The Factors the Court Weighs Up
Under section 3 of the 1975 Act, the court must consider a specific list of factors when deciding any claim. For adult children, the most important are:
- Your financial resources and needs — both now and in the foreseeable future.
- The financial resources and needs of the beneficiaries — the people who stand to benefit under the Will.
- Any obligations or responsibilities the deceased had toward you — financial, moral or otherwise.
- The size and nature of the estate — a larger estate gives the court more room to make provision without unfairly depleting what goes to other beneficiaries.
- Any physical or mental disability you may have.
- Any other matter the court considers relevant — this is a broad catch-all that allows the court to consider the full picture, including the quality of your relationship with the deceased, any promises made, and the reasons behind the Will.
The court is also required to have regard to testamentary freedom: the principle that people are entitled to leave their estate as they wish. This means the court will not override a Will lightly, particularly where the deceased clearly considered their options and made a deliberate choice.
Time Limits and Practical Steps
The Six-Month Deadline
You must issue your claim within six months of the grant of probate. This is a strict time limit. It is possible to apply to the court for permission to bring a late claim, but the court does not grant permission readily, and the longer you wait, the harder it becomes.
If you think you may have a claim, take advice as soon as possible – ideally before probate is granted.
Costs
Inheritance Act claims carry a costs risk. If your claim goes to trial and you lose, the court may order you to pay the other side’s legal costs as well as your own. This is a serious consideration, and it is one reason why most claims settle through negotiation before they ever reach a courtroom.
Settlement
The majority of adult child claims are resolved by agreement, not by a judge. Once both sides understand the strength of the evidence, there is often a commercial incentive to settle. A good legal team will help you negotiate from a position of strength while being realistic about the likely outcome.
Left Out of a Parent’s Will? Get a No Win No Fee Assessment
If you have been disinherited or left out of a parent’s Will, the most important step is to get an honest assessment of where you stand — before the six-month deadline passes.
At C-PAID, we can put you in touch with specialist will dispute solicitors who can assess whether your circumstances meet the “something more” test, on a genuine No Win No Fee basis. You pay nothing upfront and there is no charge for the initial review of your enquiry. The earlier you act, the more options you will have.
Contact us today to challenge a parent’s Will with no win no fee solicitors.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts. C-PAID does not provide legal advice. We help connect people with specialist contentious probate solicitors.
