What actually is ‘reasonable financial provision’ for the purposes of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975?

If someone’s will (or lack thereof) does not leave a certain class of people with reasonable financial provision, a claim may potentially be made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the Inheritance Act’). But what does ‘reasonable financial provision’ actually mean?

Background

English law puts significant weight on ‘testamentary freedom’; the right to dispose of one’s property as they please via a will. Other legal systems, like our continental cousins, tend to have more hard and fast rules on who gets what. However, if a person in England fails to create a will, only then is their estate distributed via the default intestacy rules. 

While a court does not have the ability to ‘re-write’ a will, England does have a limit on testamentary freedom – the Inheritance Act. 

Legislation

Section 1 of the Inheritance Act lists the classes of people who can make a claim for reasonable financial provision. Section 2 goes on to define different levels of provision that can be claimed, depending on the specific class. For most applicants, it is financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for their maintenance.

However, for spouses and civil union partners, provision is what as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a spouse or civil union partner to receive, whether or not that provision is required for their maintenance. Therefore, spouses and civil union partners will likely receive more generous provision than the other classes of applicants. 

What is ‘maintenance’? 

If an applicant is not a spouse or civil union parter (e.g. a child of the deceased), their reasonable financial provision will be tied to ‘maintenance’. The leading case dealing with the issue of maintenance is Ilott v The Blue Cross & Ors [2017] UKSC 17. While there will likely be overlap between them, Ilott stated that there is essentially a two-part test:

1. Did the will/intestacy make reasonable financial provision for the applicant; and 
2. If not, what reasonable financial provision ought now be made for them?

The test is not whether the deceased acted reasonably in how they distributed their estate via their will, although conduct can potentially be taken into account at a later point. The issue is therefore what is reasonable for the applicant to receive (if anything). 

Ilott also made clear that maintenance cannot extend to any or every thing that would be desirable for an applicant to have. Maintenance connotes payments which directly or indirectly enable the applicant in future to discharge the cost of their daily living at whatever standard is appropriate to them. The provision is to meet recurring expenses, not to provide a windfall or to simply reward meritorious behaviour. 

This does not mean that all orders are for periodic payments. There are many orders available, inciting lump sums, transfers of property and awarding a life interest in property. While a court is more likely to order a life interest in a property than an outright transfer to an applicant, this is not an absolute rule. The level of ‘maintenance’ will clearly be flexible and will depend on the needs of each individual applicant. 

Considerations

When considering what is reasonable financial provision (and what will constitute ‘maintenance’), the court will take into account a number of factors, including those at s.3(1) of the Inheritance Act, being:

1. the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
2. the financial resources and financial needs which any other applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
3. the financial resources and financial needs which any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
4. any obligations and responsibilities which the deceased had towards any applicant or towards any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
5. the size and nature of the net estate of the deceased;
6. any physical or mental disability of any applicant or any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
7. any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant.

Abled adult children 

Lady Hale (with whom Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson agreed) in Ilott looked at previous research and proposals and pointed out the unsatisfactory position the law was in in relation to adult children and whether they were deserving or undeserving of reasonable maintenance.

Ilott confirmed that there is no need, in of itself,  for a ‘moral claim’ to be required for an applicant to bring a claim. However, per Re Hancock (1998) 2 FLR 346, it may be difficult for a child who is able to earn their own living to show that reasonable financial provision has not been made for them without some special circumstances such as a moral obligation. Such moral obligation may be taken into consideration at s.3(1)(g) of the Act. 

It might be difficult for an adult child who does not suffer from any physical or mental disability to make a successful claim; at least it seems unlikely to be substantial. It appears that, when an applicant is an able adult who can make their own way financially in the world, something more than the qualifying relationship well be needed to create a claim, and that the additional something might have to be a moral claim. 

Some moral claims could be where a child works in a family businesses and was expected to inherit, like in Re Campbell [1983] NI 10, where a son lived and worked on his father’s farm his entire adult life. Another claim could be similar to the case of Re Abram [1996] 1 FLR 379, where a child worked in the deceased’s business for low wages. Unfortunately, it will likely all depend on the facts of the case. 

What does this mean for you?

The Inheritance Act does not give the courts a power to rewrite the wills. However, it does allow the court to give a certain class of people ‘reasonable financial provision’. This provision will be relatively more generous for spouses and partners; in principle, a widow or widower should not be worse off in death than in divorce. 

However, other applicants can only apply for reasonable financial provision which equates to  maintenance. While lump sum orders or property transfers are possible, the court is only supposed to make orders that relate to discharging the cost of an applicant’s daily living. 

There will often be many competing claims, especially if there is a modest estate. It appears that, if an adult child is well-off enough, it might be possible to successfully disinherit them. Any court will have to take a broad-brush approach and often at times make a value judgment on the evidence before them. 

Ultimately and unfortunately, each application will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is critical that you get timely legal advice, whether you are wanting to create a will or whether you want to make a claim against an estate. 

13th Apr 2026

Tom Gilchrist

Call 2018 (2016 - New Zealand)