UPDATE – What actually is ‘reasonable financial provision’ for the purposes of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975? – McDaniel v Talbot & Anor [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch)

On 13 April 2026, we explored the issue of ‘reasonable financial provision’ for the purposes of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (see the article here). 

Four days later, on 17 April 2026, the case of McDaniel v Talbot & Anor [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch) was handed down; what incredible timing. McDaniel v Talbot & Anor is interesting, as it dealt with the issue of an adult child making a claim to a deceased parent’s estate. 

Facts & findings 

Ms McDaniel was the daughter of the deceased, Mr Talbot. Apart from one or two encounters at Ms McDaniel’s paternal grandmother’s house and a single phone call from Ms McDaniel to Mr Talbot when she became pregnant at 16, the two were estranged from when Ms McDaniel was 8 months old. The estrangement was due to the decision of Mr Talbot.

Mr Talbot later started a relationship with another woman, Rosemary Talbot, and married her in 2013. His will was dated 2014 and essentially disinherited Ms McDaniel and her brother. It was stated that he did not want to leave them anything due to the estrangement. The will essentially left everything to Mrs Talbot. 

Ms McDaniel finished school at 16 without any qualifications but did attend college part-time at around 19-20 years old, where she completed her GCSEs and obtained a level 3 diploma. In her final year, she fell pregnant again and had a second child. 

Her first child had ADHD, autism and dyspraxia. He also had a number of mental health issues. Her second child had Downs Syndrome and a number of other disabilities. Ms McDaniel went on to graduate with a BSc Hons in Psychology. She received her Master’s in 2015. Ms McDaniel’s second child was unwell and had heart surgery in 2012. He also had to be home educated for a time due to his complex needs. 

In 2019, Mr Talbot called Ms McDaniel on his own volition. They then spoke a few more times via telephone. They then met for the first time in years. A photo of the two of them from that day was the only photo on Mr Talbot’s phone the day he died. 

After this meeting, they spoke on the phone more, and met more often. She joined him on a holiday at his villa in Portugal. There was even talk of Ms McDaniel and her family moving in with Mr Talbot. While there was a rift about Ms McDaniel’s brother (Mr Talbot’s son), this was soon mended. 

When Ms McDaniel married in 2022, Mr & Mrs Talbot were invited to the wedding. While Mr Talbot did not attend, partly due to mobility issues, he sent a card and a cheque for £1,000.00. In the months before Mr Talbot’s death in October 2022, Ms McDaniel would assist him with medical appointments. 

Mr Talbot built up a very successful business, and his estate was worth around £1,574,579.67. Ms McDaniel had established a business herself but was essentially living at subsistence level and had a number of debts. 

Caroline Shea KC, sitting as a High Court Judge found that that there were special circumstances in Ms McDaniel’s caring contributions to her own children, Mr Talbot and Mr Talbot’s mother. While being necessitous and having standing was not sufficient for a claim, it was the special circumstances of Ms McDaniel that tipped the balance, making her claim successful. Ms McDaniel was awarded £123,418.47 in total, with a lump sum of £20,263.47 as a lump sum to pay off her debts, with the balance to be held in trust for her to draw down on. 

Conclusion 

McDaniel v Talbot & Anor [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch) is a timely reminder of the issues that can arise when adult children make claims against an estate. While they may be able to pay their bills as they arise, adult children may have a ‘moral claim’ that tips the balance, enabling their claim to be successful. 

All of this needs to be taken into account when considering if a person might have a claim, as well as executors considering defending a claim made by an adult child; there will often times where it is more economical to compromise a claim and settle. 

Ultimately, these types of cases will turn on their individual facts. This is coupled by the reality that the court has significant discretion in the remedies that it can order. This means getting legal advice early can be critical. 

6th May 2026

Tom Gilchrist

Call 2018 (2016 - New Zealand)