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.
An adult child of any age can apply under the Inheritance Act 1975, but only for provision that is reasonable for their maintenance — the everyday costs of living — not for an equal or fairer share of the estate. The court asks, objectively, whether the will or intestacy made reasonable provision for the child, weighing the factors in section 3. Financial need is required but is not sufficient on its own; for an adult able to support themselves, something more than the relationship is needed. The claim is due within six months of the grant.
Being left out of a parent's will, or left much less than a brother or sister, is painful, and it is natural to ask whether the law can do anything about it. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows a child of any age to ask a court for financial provision from a parent's estate. But the Act is narrower than many people expect, and it is not a way of making an unequal will equal.
This page explains who counts as a child, the standard the court applies to adult children, what the courts have said about when an adult child's claim can succeed, and the time limit. For the Act as a whole, see our main guide to Inheritance Act 1975 claims. This page is information about the law, not advice on any individual situation.
This page covers England and Wales. The Act applies only where the parent was domiciled in England and Wales, and does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland (sections 1(1) and 27(2)).
An Inheritance Act claim does not say the will is invalid. It accepts the will — or, if there was none, the intestacy rules — and asks the court to alter its effect so that reasonable financial provision is made for the applicant. If the question is whether the will itself is valid (for example because the parent lacked capacity or was subject to undue influence), that is a different claim; see contesting a will.
A child of the deceased — section 1(1)(c). There is no upper age limit. Section 25 says "child" includes a child born outside marriage and a child conceived but not yet born at the death. An adopted child is treated in law as the child of the adoptive parents (Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 67), and so can claim against an adoptive parent's estate. The same section generally treats an adopted person as no longer the child of their birth parents.
A person treated as a child of the family — section 1(1)(d). Someone who is not the deceased's child can apply if the deceased treated them as a child of the family, either in relation to a marriage or civil partnership of the deceased, or "otherwise in relation to any family in which the deceased at any time stood in the role of a parent". A stepchild is the usual example. The wider words about "the role of a parent" were added by the Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014, for deaths after 1 October 2014.
A surviving spouse or civil partner can claim whatever is reasonable in all the circumstances. A child, of any age, cannot. Section 1(2)(b) limits the claim to what "it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance".
The Supreme Court explained this in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17:
The Court also noted that all applicants other than a spouse or civil partner "cannot make a claim on the general basis that it was unfair that they did not receive any, or a larger, slice of the estate" (paragraph 2).
Two principles from the Supreme Court's judgment shape adult children's claims.
The test is objective. The court does not ask whether the parent acted reasonably in making the will. It asks whether, looked at objectively, the result makes reasonable financial provision for the child (paragraphs 16 to 18). The Court approved the words of Oliver J in In re Coventry [1980] Ch 461, a claim by an adult son: "It is not the purpose of the Act to provide legacies or rewards for meritorious conduct", and "the court has no carte blanche to reform the deceased's dispositions … to accord with what the court itself might have thought would be sensible". The two questions can give different answers: a parent may have acted reasonably when making the will but circumstances changed afterwards, or may have acted unreasonably, even spitefully, without the result failing to provide for the child's maintenance (paragraph 17).
Need is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. For applicants limited to maintenance, "need … is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an order. Need, plus the relevant relationship to qualify the claimant, is not always enough" (paragraph 19). Oliver J in Coventry said there must be "some sort of moral claim by the applicant to be maintained by the deceased … beyond the mere fact of a blood relationship". The Supreme Court explained that this does not make a moral claim a requirement in every case. It means "that in the case of a claimant adult son well capable of living independently, something more than the qualifying relationship is needed to found a claim" (paragraph 20).
The Supreme Court illustrated these points with earlier cases:
The Court also said the relationship between parent and child can matter in either direction. Where an adult child had been exceptionally close to a parent, had supported and nurtured them in old age at some cost in time and money, and had been promised many times that they would be looked after in the will, "a judge ought in such circumstances to attach importance to the closeness of the relationship" in assessing what reasonable provision requires (paragraph 35). A long estrangement, equally, is a relevant factor.
A promise of inheritance that someone relied on to their detriment may also found a separate claim outside the 1975 Act, called proprietary estoppel (explained by the Supreme Court in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27). It has its own rules and is not covered here.
Section 3(1) sets out the factors the court must consider for every applicant:
For a child, or someone treated as a child of the family, section 3(3) adds "the manner in which the applicant was being or in which he might expect to be educated or trained". For someone treated as a child of the family, it also adds whether and for how long the deceased maintained them, how far the deceased assumed responsibility for them, whether the deceased knew they were not their own child, and whether anyone else is liable to maintain them.
The court considers the facts as they are at the date of the hearing (section 3(5)), and makes "a single assessment" in light of all the relevant factors (Ilott, paragraph 34). The beneficiaries the parent chose — whether relatives or charities — do not have to justify their inheritance by need or expectation (Ilott, press summary, on paragraphs 44 to 47).
We have not found any official source that publishes how often adult children's claims succeed or what they typically produce, so this page gives no figures.
The facts. Mrs Jackson died in 2004 leaving an estate of about £486,000, almost all to charities with which she had had no particular connection in her lifetime. She left nothing to her only child, Mrs Ilott, from whom she had been estranged for 26 years. She had recorded her decision in letters of wishes with her wills, and had told Mrs Ilott of it. Mrs Ilott lived in straitened circumstances with her husband and five children, partly on state benefits (paragraphs 4 to 10).
What happened. 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 on appeal, and was not challenged in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal later raised 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 £50,000. The district judge had been entitled to take the long estrangement and Mrs Jackson's clear wishes into account in deciding what provision was reasonable, and had not made the errors the Court of Appeal found (paragraphs 29 to 47).
What it did not decide. Because the finding that reasonable provision had not been made was no longer in issue, the Supreme Court did not decide that an adult child in need is entitled to provision. Lord Hughes said "some judges might legitimately have concluded" that the estrangement meant the mother had "no remaining obligation to make any provision for her independent adult daughter" (paragraph 35). Lady Hale, in a separate judgment, described the state of the law as unsatisfactory because it gives no guidance on how to weigh the factors in deciding whether an adult child should receive maintenance (paragraphs 49 to 66).
Under section 4, a claim may not be made more than six months after the date the grant of probate or letters of administration is first taken out, except with the court's permission. For deaths after 1 October 2014, section 4 also says "nothing prevents the making of an application before such representation is first taken out", so a claim can be made before a grant.
The six months runs from the grant, not the death, and negotiation does not pause it. For how the court approaches late claims, and the protection section 20 gives personal representatives who distribute after six months, see time limits for contesting a will and our main Inheritance Act guide. A standing search tells you when a grant is issued.
A caveat stops a grant being issued. GOV.UK describes it as a way to raise a dispute about who can apply for probate, whether a will exists, or whether it is valid; an Inheritance Act claim does not dispute any of these. See how to enter a caveat for what a caveat does. For resolving disagreements without a court hearing, see mediation in estate disputes.
Sources
Related guides