In England and Wales, you generally have freedom to distribute your estate as you wish, yet the Inheritance Act 1975 can restrain that freedom by allowing certain people (like your spouse or children) to claim reasonable financial provision from your estate.
The courts respect your testamentary freedom – they won’t automatically rewrite a Will just because someone feels it’s “unfair”. But if an eligible claimant genuinely needs help and was left with nothing, the court can step in.
Before I discuss the cases that have shaped the law on disinheritance, I would encourage you to consider that your Will is not merely a document dividing your estate – it represents your lasting legacy. You may feel you have valid reasons for disinheriting a child, but where other family members are involved, this can lead to deep family divisions, painful disagreements, and lasting resentment. In other words, it is not just the disinherited child that suffers. Considering these potential consequences for your wider family could guide you in making balanced decisions.
Maintenance, not windfall
When it comes to adult children, the key word here is maintenance, not generosity or equal shares. A leading case, Ilott v The Blue Cross (2017 UKSC 17), illustrates this point. In Ilott, an adult daughter who had been estranged for 26 years was left out of her mother’s will (the estate was left to charity). The Supreme Court affirmed that claimants do not need to show they morally “deserved” an inheritance – need and other factors can be enough.
However, the judges also stressed that the concept of maintenance under the Act “cannot extend to any or every thing which it would be desirable for the claimant to have”. The law is not there to give disinherited adult children a windfall or equal share, only to ensure they aren’t left without essential resources.
Ultimately, in Ilott, the daughter received a modest £50,000 – enough to meet some basic needs – rather than the much larger sum she had hoped for, reinstating the original award made by the District Judge. Ilott shows us that courts won’t normally override a will just because it seems harsh – they intervene only to the extent needed to prevent real hardship.
Who can claim, and how the court measures “need”
Under the 1975 Act, only certain people can claim: mainly your spouse or civil partner, your children (including adult children), anyone treated as a child of the family, any dependants you were maintaining, and cohabitees (who lived with the deceased as spouse/civil partner for at least two years immediately before death).
Here I’m focusing on adult children, since your interest is whether you can disinherit one of your children. An adult child can bring a claim, even if they are financially independent – there is no rule automatically barring adult children. However, for an independent adult, what counts as “reasonable financial provision” is defined by the Act as “such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance.” The bar is high: the adult child must typically show they have a need for maintenance that has not been met.
In practical terms, the court applies a two-stage test:
- First, has the will (or intestacy) failed to make reasonable provision for the adult child?
- Second, if so, what (if any) money should be provided to them, considering their needs and resources, the estate’s size, and the needs of any other beneficiaries or claimants?
The court has a lot of discretion and must weigh all the factors listed in the Act (Section 3), including:
- the financial needs and resources of the claimant and beneficiaries,
- any obligations the deceased had toward them,
- the length and nature of the relationship, any disabilities…
- …and even the conduct of the parties if relevant.
Crucially, need alone does not guarantee success. An adult child in financial need isn’t a blank cheque; it’s just the start of the conversation. The claimant’s needs will be balanced against your reasons for disinheriting, any prior provision or gifts you gave, and the situation of other dependants (for example, a spouse you’ve provided for).
For example, in Ames v Jones (2016), an adult daughter challenged her father’s will, which left everything to his second wife. The daughter was in her 40s, unemployed and claiming she couldn’t make ends meet. The court found she had provided “unreliable” evidence of her needs and was in fact capable of working.
The judge decided her unemployment was a lifestyle choice – and that alone was enough to defeat her claim. The father’s priority to care for his widow was entirely reasonable. This illustrates that if an adult child can work and support themselves, and especially if the estate is needed to support someone like a spouse, the court is unlikely to interfere.
By contrast, cases where adult children succeed often involve clear needs on the child’s part and perhaps minimal impact on other beneficiaries. In Ilott, the daughter was living in straitened circumstances on state benefits. There was no spouse or other dependent with a competing need – the estate was going to charities.
Maintenance generally means provision to meet daily living expenses and basic needs – not a home upgrade, not a nest-egg for the future, and certainly not an “equal” division of the estate.
Points to consider:
Does your child actually need financial help for daily living? Do you have other obligations, e.g. to a spouse or other children, that justify your decision? And did you already provide for that child during your life? The stronger your reasoning and the more self-sufficient the child, the more likely the court will uphold your wishes.
On the other hand, if your child has significant needs (e.g. disability, very low income) and you leave them nothing, a court may feel compelled to make a provision regardless of your feelings towards them. Remember that the Act does not concern itself with general notions of fairness or equal division – it is focused on needs and maintenance.
Letters of wishes: helpful or harmful?
When disinheriting (or drastically limiting) a child’s share, it’s common to leave a letter of wishes explaining your decision. These letters can be very useful evidence if a claim is later brought under the 1975 Act – but they can also backfire if done poorly. The content and tone of your letter of wishes may end up under a judge’s microscope, so it’s important to draft it carefully.
What helps:
A measured, factual letter of wishes can reinforce your position. If you have clear reasons – for example, “I have already given my daughter substantial financial help during my lifetime,” or “We have been estranged for 20 years and she has been financially independent since,” – set those out calmly and, if possible, back them with evidence (like dates and amounts of lifetime gifts, or brief facts about the estrangement).
Judges will consider your stated reasons. In Ilott, the mother’s letter explained that she felt no obligation to her daughter and instructed her executors to contest any claim. The charities (the will beneficiaries) used that letter to argue the mother’s wishes should be respected. The Supreme Court indeed emphasised that the mother’s “freely made and considered choice” to benefit charities was important. Although the daughter got a small award, the court did not disregard the mother’s reasons; it simply balanced them against the daughter’s basic needs.
Similarly, in Miles v Shearer (2021), the father made his intentions crystal clear: after giving each daughter around £180,000 as a gift during his life, he told them that was the end of his financial support. He then left his entire £2+ million estate to his second wife. The High Court, in rejecting the daughters’ claims, took account of the fact that the father had drawn a line financially – he had settled what he felt they should have, and owed no further duty. A letter of wishes in that case (and evidence of the large lifetime gifts) were instrumental in showing the court that the disinheritance was intentional, considered, and offset by earlier provision.
What hurts:
On the other hand, a spiteful or grossly inaccurate letter of wishes can actually encourage a court to intervene. If your letter is full of bitterness or unproven accusations, a judge might discount your “reasons” as vindictive or not credible. For instance, in Nahajec v Fowle (2017), a father cut out his children and left his estate to a friend. He also left a very hostile letter of wishes about his children.
One of the daughters (aged 31, estranged from him) challenged the will. The court noted the father’s letter and stance were stubborn and intransigent. The daughter, by contrast, came across as genuine in her wish to retrain as a veterinary nurse and improve her lot.
The judge in Nahajec did respect that the father wanted his estate to go to his friend, but found on the facts that reasonable provision had not been made for the daughter. She was granted £30,000 (about 11% of the estate) – even though the father had explicitly directed otherwise. Why? The hostile tone of the father’s letter may well have hurt the case: it painted him as someone acting out of animosity rather than out of a balanced assessment of his daughter’s situation.
The court still limited the award to a maintenance sum (far less than the £59k the daughter originally sought), but the key point is, the father’s spiteful letter did not shield his estate. Likewise, letters that contain factual errors (for example, saying “my son is wealthy” when in truth he isn’t) will undermine your position – the claimant will seize on any inaccuracies to show the disinheritance was based on false assumptions or malice.
Another cautionary tale is the old case of Wright v Waters (2014). There, an estranged adult daughter had actually written to her mother years earlier to say she wanted no further contact and “wished [her] mother were dead.” Unsurprisingly, the mother’s Will left that daughter nothing.
When the daughter later claimed against the estate, the mother’s files produced that extremely hurtful letter. The judge described the daughter’s letter as “extreme” and found that her conduct “outweighed all other factors”, including her own financial needs and health issues. The daughter’s claim was dismissed entirely – it was deemed objectively reasonable for the mother to have excluded her in those circumstances. This shows that a claimant’s bad conduct or hurtful communications can equally swing the balance the other way.
Points to consider:
A letter of wishes is a double-edged sword. Use it to document sensible, factual reasons for your decision. Avoid any unduly emotional language – certainly avoid insults or airing all the family dirty laundry. If estrangement is a reason, describe objectively when and how contact broke down (and, importantly, if you tried to reconcile or the fault lies elsewhere, note that).
If you have already provided for the child during life or believe they are financially secure, state the facts (e.g. “I gifted my son £50,000 in 2018 as a house deposit, and he has a well-paid job, so I believe he does not require further provision”). Do not exaggerate, and don’t rely on second-hand information unless you have evidence.
For disinheritance matters, I would always recommend that you work with a solicitor to draft your letter.
Best practices if you intend to disinherit
Disinheriting an adult child is a serious decision that should be made with careful planning, as it can have profound emotional consequences for the whole family, not just the child who has been disinherited.
If it is still your decision to disinherit, here are some suggested steps to strengthen your position and reduce the risk of a successful claim:
Consider leaving a modest gift in the will.
Cutting a child out entirely can provoke a claim, and the court might feel compelled to make some award for maintenance. One strategy is to leave a defined, modest legacy (or perhaps an income from a trust) to that child, which you deem sufficient for their maintenance. For example, instead of £0, you might leave, say, a lump sum of £20,000 or a small share of your estate.
This won’t guarantee they won’t contest the will, but it shows you turned your mind to their needs. In some cases, a pre-emptive gift might persuade a court that reasonable provision was made. It’s harder for a claimant to argue they were left with nothing if, in fact, you did leave them something.
Ideally, the sum should be tied to practical needs – perhaps enough to cover a certain period of rent, or a course of therapy, or to pay off a specific debt. By making that provision in your will, you essentially front-load what a court might have given as maintenance. (Bear in mind, though, if you leave too token an amount – like £100 – it may be seen as spiteful and carry little weight. It should be modest but meaningful in the context of your estate and the child’s circumstances.)
Draft a careful, neutral letter of wishes.
As discussed above, a well-drafted letter of wishes is key. I would strongly recommend doing this with the help of a solicitor.
In your letter:
State the factual reasons for your decision. If there was an estrangement, stick to the facts (e.g. “We have been out of contact since 2010, after numerous attempts on my part to reconcile were rebuffed”). If the child has made certain life choices you disagree with, be cautious – focus on how those choices show independence (e.g. “My daughter has chosen a lifestyle apart from the family and has not relied on me financially for many years”), rather than moral judgments.
Highlight any significant support or gifts you gave during your lifetime. For instance, “I paid for X’s university fees and gave her a £30,000 gift toward a house deposit in 2015.” Provide dates and amounts; consider attaching a schedule of gifts if it’s lengthy.
Explain your priorities. If you have other dependants (like a spouse with health issues or young children), articulate that: “I need to ensure my wife is provided for, given her need for care,” or “I have chosen to leave the bulk of my estate to [Y], who has a disability and will need funds for their care.”
Avoid disparaging remarks and stick to what you can evidence. Don’t say “he’s hopeless with money” or “she never cared about me” – such comments invite dispute about their truth and paint you in a bad light. If there was misconduct by the child, you can mention it factually (“After [incident], I felt it necessary to distance myself”), but tread carefully. Sometimes it’s better to let the facts speak for themselves (or let the beneficiaries raise those points if a claim is brought).
Keep the tone respectful and objective. Think of the letter as if it will be read aloud in court (because it very well might be). A judge should come away thinking, “This parent made a considered decision for sensible reasons,” not “This parent was vindictive.”
Document everything now.
If part of your reasoning is that you’ve already provided plenty of support to your child, make sure you have records of that support. Keep bank statements, copies of cheques, or signed acknowledgments for any substantial gifts or payments.
Likewise, if your child has said or done things that justify estrangement (e.g. threats, harassment, “I don’t want your money” emails), save those communications. You don’t need to include all this in your will or letter, but let your executors or solicitor know that evidence exists. In the event of a court fight, contemporaneous documents (like that infamous “I wish you were dead” letter in Wright v Waters) can be game-changing.
Be cautious with “no-contest” clauses.
You might be tempted to insert a clause in your will saying that if any beneficiary challenges the will, they forfeit their inheritance (a so-called no-contest or forfeiture clause). While these clauses are valid in principle in England, they do not prevent someone from bringing a 1975 Act claim – the Act gives the court power to make provision regardless of such clauses.
In some cases, a no-contest clause can deter trivial challenges to the validity of a will. But in a 1975 Act context, if you have disinherited a child entirely, a no-contest clause offers no further disincentive (there’s nothing for them to forfeit since you left them nothing, or only a token amount).
Even if you left them a small legacy that they’d lose by challenging, most will weigh the odds and may challenge anyway if their need is great. Moreover, an aggressive no-contest clause might sour the tone and make litigation more likely (it could signal “I knew you’d sue me, bring it on”).
Use such clauses only on specific legal advice. They are not a substitute for proper planning. At best, they are a psychological and tactical tool. (If you do use one, one strategy is to leave a slightly larger gift that the child would hesitate to gamble by suing – but that means giving them more, which may defeat the purpose of disinheriting.)
Key cases:
Each case turns on its own facts but these should give you a flavour of how the courts view and handle disputes.
Ilott v The Blue Cross & Ors [2017] UKSC 17:
Estranged adult daughter vs. charity beneficiaries. An important Supreme Court decision. The daughter (Heather Ilott) was on very low income and benefits. Her late mother left a £486k estate entirely to charities with whom she had no close connection. The Supreme Court upheld the principle that maintenance (not reward or equal sharing) is the measure for adult children.
Heather received £50,000 – not enough to buy her council house as she had hoped, and far less than the amount the Court of Appeal had earlier awarded.
“The concept of ‘maintenance’… cannot extend to any or every thing which it would be desirable for the claimant to have.” This case confirms courts will not re-write a will just because an adult child feels wronged – they will only award a limited sum for ongoing maintenance if justified.
Ames v Jones & Ors [2016] EW Misc B67 (CC)
Adult daughter vs. stepmother (father’s estate). The daughter (Danielle Ames) was 41, unemployed and claimed financial difficulty. The father’s £1m estate all went to his second wife (Danielle’s stepmum). The court found Danielle had not proven an inability to work; on the contrary, her unemployment was deemed a “lifestyle choice,” which defeated her claim. The stepmother’s own limited means and ill health weighed heavily – she “required the entirety of the estate to meet her reasonable needs.” The judge noted the father had discharged any obligations to Danielle while alive (he had helped her start a business, which she later gave up).
Wright v Waters [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch):
Adult daughter (estranged) vs. mother’s estate. A stark example of conduct barring a claim. The daughter, Patricia, had been estranged for many years and had sent her mother a devastating letter in 2001 saying she didn’t want contact and wished her mother were dead. The mother left Patricia nothing (estate to another child). Patricia, despite ill health and financial need, lost her claim. The judge held that Patricia’s “extreme” conduct – that letter – outweighed all other factors, and it was objectively reasonable for the mother to disinherit.
Nahajec v Fowle [2017] EW Misc 11 (CC):
Adult daughter (estranged) vs. father’s estate left to a friend. The daughter (Katrina) was 31, estranged by her father’s choice, and in straightened financial circumstances (low income, some debt, wishing to retrain as a veterinary nurse). The father’s £265k estate went to a close friend, accompanied by a very critical letter of wishes about his children.
The court found the father had not made reasonable provision. It awarded £30,000 to the daughter – about half of what she asked for, calibrated to cover maintenance for a period and some debt, but not enough to fund the full career change she hoped for.
Notably, the judge said it wasn’t the daughter’s fault that her father was “stubborn and intransigent” in ignoring her. Each case is fact-specific, but Nahajec shows an adult child with genuine (modest) needs can succeed even against an express disinheritance, especially where the will’s beneficiary (here, a friend) has no competing need as strong as the claimant’s.
Miles & Anor v Shearer [2021] EWHC 1000 (Ch):
Two adult daughters vs. wealthy father’s estate left to second wife. A recent High Court case that came out firmly on the side of testamentary freedom. The late Tony Shearer had a large estate (~£2.2m) and had given his daughters about £180k each during his life. He made it clear that was all they’d get; his will left everything to his second wife (their stepmother).
The daughters (one of whom had a disabled child) claimed maintenance from the estate. The court dismissed their claims, finding no failure of reasonable provision – the daughters were adults in comfortable circumstances (one had £70k salary, the other had housing provided by her mother) and the father had no obligation to support them further. The judge highlighted the “generous provision” made in life, and noted that the father was simply not prepared to provide more. This case underscores that even a large estate need not be shared with adult children if they can cope without it; prior gifts and the deceased’s clear intentions carry great weight.
Shapton v Seviour [2020] WTLR 1047 (Ch) (High Court, on appeal from County Court):
Adult daughter vs. father’s estate left to his widow (stepmother of claimant). The estate was modest (~£268k, mostly tied up in the house). The stepmother was terminally ill with motor neurone disease and needed the assets for her care. The daughter (Carly Shapton) had received £2,500 from her father for a wedding, but felt slighted it wasn’t more, and they became estranged after the funeral. She brought a claim for £75k.
The court not only dismissed her claim but called it “absolutely hopeless.” The Deputy Master held that given the small estate and the widow’s enormous needs (80% of the estate was the house the widow lived in, which she needed), there was no reasonable scenario to award the daughter anything. He ordered the daughter to pay £50k in costs to the estate – a cautionary tale about weak claims. This case is often cited by lawyers to warn clients that adult child claims can lead to cost exposure if they lack merit.
Re H (Deceased) [2020] EWHC 1134 (Fam):
Adult daughter vs. estate of father, where mother (widow) was main beneficiary. An interesting High Court (Family Division) case showing sympathy to a very needy adult child. The daughter had severe mental health difficulties, was on benefits, and had been estranged from her father. The father’s estate primarily benefited his second wife (the claimant’s stepmother).
The stepmother’s conduct in the case (failing to comply with court orders, showing hostility) did not endear her to the judge. The court made an unusual award to the daughter, including sums for psychotherapy, a shortfall in income for 3 years, replacement of some household items, a car upgrade, and even £16,750 specifically towards the success fee on her “no win, no fee” arrangement with her solicitors. This was notable because normally success fees (CFA uplifts) aren’t recoverable; the judge treated it as part of her needs, effectively saying she needed that much to clear her legal debt so that therapy and maintenance monies weren’t eaten by legal bills.
Even so, the daughter did not get everything – for example, she sought a housing fund which was largely refused (she only got £10k toward a deposit). Re H shows that where an adult child is extremely vulnerable (here, serious psychiatric issues) and the estate can afford it, courts may be willing to be creative in providing maintenance. However, note that the estate here had no minor children and was fairly sizeable; plus the widow’s obstructive behavior didn’t help her side.
Update: the Supreme Court has since overruled the recovery of CFA success fees as part of 1975 Act awards (Hirachand v Hirachand, 18 Dec 2024).
Jennifer Wiss-Carline is a practising Solicitor regulated by the SRA and a Chartered Legal Executive (FCILEx), bringing over two decades of experience to her practice. Specialising primarily in Private Client law, Jennifer expertly handles matters including Wills, Inheritance Tax and Estate planning, Lasting Powers of Attorney for individuals and businesses, Deputyship Orders and more.
