Farra is a death administration assistant for UK families. Get step-by-step guidance for registering a death, applying for probate, notifying banks, and managing bereavement admin. From essential documents to practical checklists, Farra simplifies estate paperwork and funeral-related tasks so you can focus on what matters.
The Inheritance Act 1975 lets a limited group of people — a spouse or civil partner, a former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried, a cohabitant of two years or more, a child, someone treated as a child of the family, and anyone the deceased was maintaining — ask a court in England and Wales to order "reasonable financial provision" from the estate. The court first asks whether the will or intestacy failed to make reasonable provision, and then what provision to order, weighing the factors in section 3. For everyone except a surviving spouse or civil partner, provision is limited to maintenance. A claim is due within six months of the grant, though it can be made earlier and a late claim needs the court's permission.
When someone dies, their will — or, if there is no will, the intestacy rules — decides who inherits. English law gives people wide freedom to leave their property as they choose. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is the main exception. It lets a limited group of people ask a court to order "reasonable financial provision" for them out of the estate, where the will or the intestacy rules have not made it.
This page sets out what the Act says: who can apply, the standard the court applies, the factors it weighs, the orders it can make, the time limit, and what the Supreme Court decided in Ilott v The Blue Cross. It is information about the law, not advice on any individual situation.
This page covers England and Wales. The Act applies only where the person who died was domiciled in England and Wales (section 1(1)), and section 27(2) says it "does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland". The position in those places is summarised at the end.
It helps to be clear about what an Inheritance Act claim is not. It does not argue that the will is invalid — that the person lacked capacity, was pressured, or that the will was not properly signed and witnessed. Those are challenges to the will's validity, a different kind of claim with different rules; see our guide on contesting a will.
An Inheritance Act claim accepts that the will (or the intestacy) stands, and asks the court to alter its effect so that reasonable financial provision is made for the applicant. The two can be run together, but they are separate questions. The Act also applies where there is no will at all: section 1(1) refers to "the disposition of the deceased's estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law".
The Supreme Court described the Act's key features in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 (paragraph 2): there is no automatic provision — the will or intestacy applies unless a claim is made and succeeds; only a limited class of people may claim; everyone other than a surviving spouse or civil partner can claim only what is needed for their maintenance; and the test is objective, not simply whether the person who died behaved reasonably.
The person who died must have been domiciled in England and Wales. Domicile is a legal concept, broadly the country a person treats as their permanent home; it is not the same as where they happened to be living, or their nationality. If domicile is in doubt, it becomes an issue in the claim itself.
If that condition is met, section 1(1) allows these people to apply:
Section 1(3), as rewritten in 2014, says a person is treated as maintained by the deceased "only if the deceased was making a substantial contribution in money or money's worth towards the reasonable needs of that person, other than a contribution made for full valuable consideration pursuant to an arrangement of a commercial nature".
So someone who was, for example, living rent-free in the deceased's home or having their bills paid may qualify, but someone paid a commercial rate for a service — a paid carer or a lodger paying a market rent — would not be "maintained" by that arrangement.
On "immediately before the death", the Court of Appeal in Gully v Dix [2004] EWCA Civ 139 approved earlier authority that the court looks at the settled basis or general arrangement between the two people, not a temporary interruption at the moment of death. The same approach applies to the two-year cohabitation period (paragraphs 12 to 18).
Two further provisions affect former spouses:
Every claim turns on one question in section 1(1): is the effect of the will or intestacy "not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant"? Section 1(2) then gives two different meanings to "reasonable financial provision".
For a surviving spouse or civil partner (section 1(2)(a) and (aa)): "such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife [or civil partner] to receive, whether or not that provision is required for his or her maintenance". This does not apply where a judicial separation order (or a civil partnership separation order) was in force at the death and the separation was continuing; a separated spouse in that position is judged on the maintenance standard instead.
For everyone else (section 1(2)(b)): "such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance".
The difference matters. In Ilott, the Supreme Court said maintenance "cannot extend to any or every thing which it would be desirable for the claimant to have. It must import provision to meet the everyday expenses of living" (paragraph 14). It "is not limited to subsistence level" and the level "is clearly flexible and falls to be assessed on the facts of each case" (paragraph 15). It can be provided as a lump sum rather than income, and can in some cases include housing — though the Court said that where housing is provided as maintenance, it is "likely more often to be provided by such a life interest rather than by a capital sum" (paragraph 15). A life interest means the right to live in or receive the income from property for life, without owning it outright.
The test is objective. The court does not ask whether the person who died acted reasonably in making the will they did; it asks whether the result makes reasonable provision for the applicant (Ilott, paragraphs 16 to 18, approving the words of Oliver J in In re Coventry [1980] Ch 461). The Supreme Court also said that for applicants limited to maintenance, need is "a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an order" (paragraph 19).
In practice, the court asks two linked questions: did the will or intestacy make reasonable financial provision for the applicant, and if not, what provision should now be made (Ilott, paragraph 23)?
Section 3(1) lists the matters the court must have regard to, for both questions:
Section 3(6) says that in looking at resources the court takes account of earning capacity, and in looking at needs it takes account of a person's own financial obligations. Section 3(5) says the court takes the facts as they are at the date of the hearing, not the date of death.
The Act adds extra factors for particular applicants:
| Applicant | Additional matters (section 3) |
|---|---|
| Spouse, civil partner, former spouse or civil partner (s.3(2)) | Age and length of the marriage or civil partnership; contribution to the family's welfare, including looking after the home or caring for the family. For a current spouse or civil partner, also what they might reasonably have expected on divorce or dissolution — but this sets no upper or lower limit |
| Cohabitant (s.3(2A)) | Age and length of time living together as a couple; contribution to the family's welfare, including looking after the home or caring for the family |
| Child, or person treated as a child of the family (s.3(3)) | How the applicant was being, or might expect to be, educated or trained |
| Person treated as a child of the family (s.3(3)) | Whether and for how long the deceased maintained them; how far the deceased assumed responsibility; whether the deceased knew they were not their own child; whether anyone else is liable to maintain them |
| Person being maintained (s.3(4)) | How long and on what basis the deceased maintained them, and how much; how far the deceased assumed responsibility for maintaining them |
The Supreme Court said in Ilott that the section 3 factors are "all to be considered so far as they are relevant, and in the light of them a single assessment of reasonable financial provision is to be made" (paragraph 34). There is no formula, and the Act does not say how much weight each factor carries.
If the court finds that reasonable financial provision has not been made, section 2(1) allows it to make one or more of these orders out of the "net estate":
Where an applicant is in immediate need before the claim is decided, section 5 allows the court to order interim payments from the estate.
The "net estate" (section 25) is broadly what the person could leave by will, after funeral, testamentary and administration expenses, debts, liabilities and tax. The Act also lets the court reach some property that would otherwise pass outside the will:
Section 4 reads, in full: an application "shall not, except with the permission of the court, be made after the end of the period of six months from the date on which representation with respect to the estate of the deceased is first taken out (but nothing prevents the making of an application before such representation is first taken out)".
In plain terms:
A standing search asks the Probate Registry to send a copy of any grant issued, which tells a potential claimant when the six months starts.
A caveat stops a grant being issued. GOV.UK describes it as a way to challenge a probate application where there is a dispute about who can apply for probate, whether a will exists, or whether the will is legal. An Inheritance Act claim does not dispute any of those things. And because section 4 now allows a claim before a grant, a claimant does not need to hold up the grant in order to bring one. See our guide on how to enter a caveat for what a caveat does and what follows from one.
Section 20(1) says the personal representatives (executors or administrators) are not personally liable for distributing the estate after the six months have passed, on the ground that they ought to have allowed for the possibility of a late claim being permitted. It adds that this does not prevent property that has been distributed being recovered because of an order made under the Act. This is why personal representatives often hold back distribution until six months after the grant.
Under CPR Part 57, Section IV, a claim is made on a Part 8 claim form (CPR 57.16(1)). In the High Court it is issued in the Chancery Division or the Family Division (CPR 57.15); section 25 of the Act also provides for claims in the county court where it has jurisdiction. The claimant's written evidence must normally attach an official copy of the grant and of the will (CPR 57.16(3)). A personal representative who is a defendant must file written evidence about the estate (CPR 57.16(5)).
We have not found any official source that publishes figures on how many claims are made, how many succeed, how long they take or what they cost, so this page gives none. For how costs work in estate disputes generally, see our guide on costs in contentious probate.
Ilott v The Blue Cross and others [2017] UKSC 17 is a Supreme Court decision on the 1975 Act, and what it decided is narrower than it is sometimes taken to be.
The facts. Mrs Jackson died in 2004, leaving most of an estate of about £486,000 to charities with which, the Court noted, she had had no particular connection in her lifetime, and nothing to her only child, Mrs Ilott. They had been estranged for 26 years, since Mrs Ilott left home at 17. Mrs Ilott lived in straitened circumstances with her husband and five children, relying in part on state benefits. Mrs Jackson had recorded her decision in letters of wishes alongside her wills of 1984 and 2002, had told Mrs Ilott of it, and the family had lived for many years without any expectation of benefit (paragraph 6).
What happened below. A district judge found that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for Mrs Ilott and awarded her £50,000. That finding was eventually upheld, and the charities did not challenge it in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal later increased the award to £143,000 to buy her home, plus an option on a further £20,000.
What the Supreme Court decided. It unanimously restored the district judge's £50,000. It held that:
What it did not decide. Because the finding that reasonable provision had not been made was no longer in dispute, the Supreme Court did not decide that an estranged adult child in need is entitled to provision. Lord Hughes observed that "some judges might legitimately have concluded" that the long estrangement meant there was no remaining obligation to provide for Mrs Ilott (paragraph 35). Lady Hale, in a separate judgment, described the law's lack of guidance on how to weigh the factors for adult children as unsatisfactory (paragraphs 49 to 66). Nor did the case change the law for spouses or civil partners, whose claims are not limited to maintenance.
Northern Ireland has its own, closely similar law: the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. It applies where the person who died was domiciled in Northern Ireland. Its wording differs in places from the current English Act, so the text on this page cannot be assumed to apply there.
Scotland has no equivalent discretionary scheme. A surviving spouse, civil partner and children have fixed "legal rights" in the estate (defined in section 36 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964). Separately, section 29 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 lets a surviving cohabitant apply to the court where their partner died without a will and domiciled in Scotland; that application must be made within six months beginning with the day of the death. See our guide on intestacy rules in Scotland.
Sources
Related guides