This article provides an overview of Isaacs v Green [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam), a recent case concerning claims by adult children under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The case is a helpful example of when an adult child who has been excluded from a parent’s will may still receive provision from the estate.
Background
As a general rule, a person is free to leave their estate as they choose. However that freedom is limited by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The 1975 Act allows certain categories of applicant to bring a claim where a will, or the intestacy rules, do not make reasonable financial provision for them.
A child of the deceased is one of the categories entitled to apply under the 1975 Act. Where the child is an adult, the claim is limited to such provision as is reasonable for their maintenance. The court is therefore not deciding whether the child has been treated equally, or whether a different division of the estate might seem fairer. The question is whether reasonable provision has been made for that person’s maintenance.
The leading authority remains Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17. That case confirmed that maintenance is a flexible concept, but it does not extend to everything it would be desirable for an applicant to have. It can, however, include provision for housing, and in some cases that provision may properly be made by way of a lump sum.
Facts – Isaacs v Green
Sybil Rachael Isaacs died in April 2013. She was survived by her three adult children, David, Ruth and Susan.
In 2002, Mrs Isaacs and her husband had made mirror wills under which, after the death of the survivor, the estate would pass equally between their three children. In 2006, however, Mrs Isaacs made a new will under which David was excluded and the residuary estate passed to Ruth and Susan.
David brought a claim under the 1975 Act. He was 74 years old, retired, in poor health and living on a modest income made up of state pension and pension credit. He had no savings. He had also lived in the family home for many years and had cared for his mother before her death.
The estate consisted mainly of the family home, worth about £600,000, together with other assets of around £27,000. David continued to live in the property after his mother’s death, alongside Ruth, but possession proceedings had been brought. There was therefore a real risk that they would have to leave.
Susan opposed the claim. Her case was that David had been excluded because of a poor relationship with his mother. David’s position was that the exclusion was linked instead to his divorce at the time of the 2006 will, and his mother’s concern that his former wife might benefit indirectly from any inheritance.
Susan also had significant needs of her own. She lived in California, was severely disabled, and lived in publicly funded care accommodation.
Decision – Isaacs v Green
The Court held that the 2006 will did not make reasonable financial provision for David.
The judge accepted that David had genuine financial need. His main need was housing. Although he had been living in the family home, he had no right to remain there and his position was insecure because of the possession proceedings.
The court also accepted that the reason for David’s exclusion was more likely to have been concern over his divorce and the possibility of his former wife benefiting, rather than any clear or lasting estrangement between mother and son. By the later years of Mrs Isaacs’ life, the relationship had improved and David had in fact cared for her.
Taking all of that into account, the court concluded that David required provision for his maintenance. The judge awarded him 25% of the residuary estate, worth about £150,000. Ruth and Susan each received 37.5%.
The court did not award David a life interest in the property. Although housing can sometimes be provided in that way, the judge considered that it was not appropriate here. The estate was relatively modest, the parties were all elderly, and a life interest would have tied up a substantial part of the estate for an uncertain period.
David and Ruth were given six months either to buy the property or vacate it. In the meantime, they were required to make a monthly payment to Susan reflecting her share of the occupation value.
Comment
This case is a useful reminder that claims by adult children remain difficult, but they are far from impossible. An adult child will not succeed simply because they have been excluded from a will or because they are in financial need. The court will usually be looking for something more than financial need and the parent–child relationship alone.
A notable feature of Isaacs v Green is the age of the parties. David was 74, and Ruth and Susan were also in their seventies. This was not a claim by a minor or younger adult, but by a pensioner child against the estate of an elderly parent.
Earlier case law has tended to focus on minor children, or on adult children still of working age where the court has considered whether the claimant should reasonably be expected to support themselves. This case reflects a different, and likely growing, category of claim: those brought by elderly adult children whose independence has been reduced by age, ill health, limited pension income and housing insecurity.
The court still applied the established principles. An adult child’s claim remains limited to maintenance, and financial need alone is not always sufficient. However, in cases involving elderly claimants, factors such as disability, inability to work, reliance on modest pension income, long residence in the family home, or care provided to the deceased will be relevant.
That was the position here. David had no savings, limited income, significant health difficulties and no realistic earning capacity. His main need was accommodation. Although he had been living in the family home, he had no secure right to remain there. Those facts distinguish the case from one in which an otherwise independent adult child seeks a share of the estate.
The position of the other beneficiaries was also relevant. The court declined to grant a life interest, noting that Ruth and Susan were themselves elderly and had needs of their own. A life interest would have tied up the principal asset of the estate and delayed access to capital, potentially for a significant period. A percentage division of the estate was therefore a more practical outcome.
The case may reflect shift. As life expectancy increases, estates will more often pass to children who are already retired. In those circumstances, pensioner children may have limited resources, care needs, or a degree of reliance on a parent. Claims of this nature are likely to become more common.
Conclusion
Isaacs v Green is an important example of a successful claim by an adult child under the 1975 Act. It does not create any automatic right for adult children to inherit, nor does it undermine the principle that a person can choose how their estate should pass.
What it does show is that where an adult child has genuine maintenance needs, particularly housing needs, there are circumstances where the court may order provision from the estate.
It is also a reminder that excluding a child from a will should be approached carefully. The reasons should be properly considered and, where appropriate, recorded. If the exclusion is based on circumstances that may change over time, such as divorce, financial instability or concern about a third-party claim, the will should be reviewed.
If you have subscribed to our Quiz Membership 2026, please find this article’s quiz here. You must be signed into the partner area of our website to access this.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Any wording or clauses referred to are illustrative and should not be relied upon as precedent without full consideration of the client’s circumstances, the will as a whole, and the law in force at the relevant time.
