By Andrew Bishop, Partner at Rothley Law
Howe v Howe made headlines in January 2025. The case involved an adult child bringing a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Inheritance Act) against the estate of her father, Roger Howe. Notably, it was the first case to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Hirachand v Hirachand.
The case sparked a range of opinions among legal professionals and the public. The Telegraph reported that the state can now “defy your dying wishes” (despite the Inheritance Act (in its current form) having been in force since 1975). Looking past the headlines, the case was typical of adult child claims:
-
The Claimant was unable to support herself and relied on state benefits.
-
A joint medical expert concluded the Claimant had significant mental health issues and was unable to work.
-
The estate was substantial, exceeding £1 million.
-
The Defendants (the deceased’s mother, sister, and two nephews) did not argue that they had competing needs.
-
There were estrangement issues; the Claimant had always hoped to reconnect with the deceased.
-
The deceased excluded the claimant, describing her as “lazy”, “useless," “grasping,” and a “druggy.” The Claimant denied these labels but admitted to being in recovery from drug addiction.
The issues were hotly contested. After considering all factors, the Court awarded £125,000 to the Claimant. The award was structured to:
-
Settle debts.
-
Address the Claimant’s health needs, such as therapy and new breast implants, essential for her confidence.
-
Provide for an income shortfall over ten years.
Following the precedent set in Larsen v Annan [2023] EWHC 662 (Ch), the award was placed in a Discretionary Trust to protect the Claimant’s benefits and prevent misuse of the funds. The Court also dispelled the myth that a ‘moral’ claim was required to succeed.
Whilst all Inheritance Act cases carry the risk of unpredictable decisions, it is the author’s view that, given the circumstances and previous post-Ilott case law (see Rochford v Rochford [2021] WTLR 951, among others), it is not surprising that provision was made.
The trends that indicate a claim may succeed (which were reflected in the Howe case) are:
-
The Claimant had a disability and an inability to work.
-
The Defendants had no competing need.
-
The estate was large enough to make provision without unduly affecting the other parties.
-
The Claimant had sought to reconnect with the deceased.
-
Conduct on the part of the Claimant was not considered relevant (see more below).
Conduct
What stands out in this case is the Court’s approach to conduct. It gives a warning sign to Defendants, and it is considered that conduct should rarely be relied upon to defend these claims.
The Claimant had previously brought an unsuccessful probate claim, resulting in a loss to the estate. She was also convicted of harassing one of the deceased’s Executors (without violence), for which she paid a fine.
Although these points might seem advantageous for the Defendants, the Judge considered them minor and not detrimental to the Claimant’s case for provision. This may be surprising, but conduct is generally a lesser factor in cases where there is a clear maintenance need. As Lord Hughes stated in Ilott:
...care must be taken to avoid making awards under the 1975 Act primarily rewards for good behaviour on the part of the Claimant or penalties for bad on the part of the deceased.
Similarly, in Re Borthwick, Decd [1949] Ch 395:
I cannot think that the conduct of the Dependant towards the Testator or otherwise can make the difference between whether you leave her starving in the gutter or no. The Courts have not taken that view.
A key lesson is that, where criminal conduct is involved, evidence should show the Claimant has complied with any punishment. In this case, the Claimant paid her fine. In Land v Land [2006] EWHC 2997 (Ch), the Claimant, convicted of the manslaughter of the deceased, still received provision. The Court said:
The Claimant must be and has been punished for the wrong that he did; he has also been punished by being deprived of the provision which the deceased intended for him. But he should not be further punished by being deprived of the reasonable provision that he might otherwise expect under the 1975 Act.
The debt claim
Claimants in these cases also typically argue for maintenance to pay debts. In Howe, the Claimant initially sought to set aside her father’s Will, alleging that one of the witnesses had not signed it. The claim was complicated by the death of that witness and the loss of her pro bono Solicitor. The Court also refused to allow late expert evidence challenging the witness’s signature. The probate claim was discontinued, and the Claimant agreed to pay the Executors’ costs of £42,000.
This sum was sought as a debt within the Inheritance Act claim, and the Court included provision for it in the award. The Court did not accept that the Claimant should be made bankrupt.
Provision for legal costs of a previous action aligns with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Hirachand v Hirachand:
I can see no grounds for excluding the payment of accrued (or future) legal costs from the meaning of the word ‘maintenance’ under section 1(2)(b) of the 1975 Act.
However, the Supreme Court also noted that “unless the Claimant can rely on a separate cause of action, litigation costs can only be recovered as costs, and not as damages.”
This suggests that Claimants combining validity and Inheritance Act claims may find it difficult to recover costs of a lost argument as a debt. Since costs are considered after judgment, there is a practical issue in addressing future debts at trial. Lawyers may need to decide whether to pursue one claim at a time, though this may not always be proportionate. Mediation is often the best way to resolve such disputes.
About the author
Andrew Bishop is a Partner at Rothley Law. He specialises in contentious Trust and probate work. He is recognised by Chambers and Legal 500 as “tremendously hardworking, knowledgeable”, and “one to watch”, and is also supporting Parliament with law reform surrounding the issue of predatory marriage. He recently won the ‘Contentious Practitioner of the Year Award’ at the 2025 British Wills and Probate Awards.
How Title Research can support you
At Title Research, we specialise in supporting Solicitors with complex estate administration. Whether it’s verifying entitlement, locating missing beneficiaries, or dealing with overseas assets, our team is here to make the process more efficient and risk-free.
Title Research provides fast, fixed-fee access to genealogical research, making us the safe choice for the resolution of complex estate administration cases. If you want to find out more, get in touch with our Client Services Team by calling 0345 87 27 600 or emailing info@titleresearch.com.
Topics: Entitlement, Inheritance, Case study, Supreme court, Disputes, Guest writer, Solicitor, Contentious Probate, Legal Professionals
