bars

CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEE SPECIALISTS – ACCOMMODATION NEED APPEARS TO BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FINANCIAL PROVISION CLAIMS BY ADULT CHILDREN

CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEE SPECIALISTS – ACCOMMODATION NEED APPEARS TO BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FINANCIAL PROVISION CLAIMS BY ADULT CHILDREN

Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, provide a commentary on the recent decision in Isaacs v Green and others [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam) since it appears to show that adult children with accommodation needs are likely to succeed in a financial provision claim under s. 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Isaacs v Green [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam): Adult Child’s 1975 Act Claim Succeeds Despite Family Disputes
When disputes arise over a will and the distribution of an estate, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”) allows certain individuals to claim reasonable financial provision. This includes adult children — but only if they can show that the will (or intestacy) fails to make provision that would be reasonable for their maintenance.

The problem for adult children is that they are not favoured applicants under the 1975 Act simply because they have stood on their own two feet for many years and it is therefore difficult to show that they have a financial need. For further information about this please consider our earlier article:

What Is So Special About Adult Children? – Will Claim Solicitors
The recent High Court decision in Isaacs v Green [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam) is a good example of such a claim succeeding despite long-standing family tensions and where an elderly adult child had brought the claim. It is a useful case study for those involved in a will contest, will dispute, or inheritance claim. It appears to reveal that accommodation need can be a compelling feature in relation to claims for financial provision by adult children – sufficient to lead to a positive finding.

The entire case can be found at:
Isaacs v Green [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam) (25 July 2025)

Background
Sybil Rachael Isaacs (“the Deceased”) died on 22 April 2013, leaving her residuary estate to her two daughters, Ruth Simone Isaacs and Susan Amelia Ellis-Cohn, in equal shares. Her son, David Marcus Isaacs, was left nothing under her will dated 20 November 2006.

David brought proceedings under the 1975 Act seeking reasonable financial provision from the estate. The First Defendant was Michael Anthony Green, the Deceased’s solicitor and personal representative. Ruth was the Second Defendant, Susan the Third.

Legal Principles Applied
As a child of the deceased, David was entitled to bring a claim under s.1(1)(c) of the 1975 Act. For adult children, “reasonable financial provision” is defined in s.1(2)(b) as such provision as it would be reasonable for them to receive for their maintenance.

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, the court noted that:

  • Maintenance is a broad concept — more than subsistence, less than wealth.
  • It can include securing suitable accommodation.
  • The court’s task is to assess needs and resources of all parties, the obligations owed by the deceased, and the size/nature of the estate.

Factual Findings

David’s Position

  • Age 74, with significant health issues affecting mobility.
  • Lived in the former matrimonial home jointly owned by Ruth and the estate.
  • Dependent on the estate (and subsequently Ruth) for housing since 2011.
  • Limited income and savings, although he spent around £450/month on collectible coins and stamps.
  • The court accepted David’s primary financial need was for accommodation.

Susan’s Position

  • Lives in the USA, severely disabled and bedbound, requiring 24-hour care.
  • No financial support from her husband, despite his resources.
  • High legal and care costs; sought provision to fund ongoing care needs.

The Estate

  • Main asset: a property in Croydon, value around £630,000 gross.
  • Estate reduced by prolonged litigation and possession proceedings.

The Court’s Reasoning

The judge found that:

  • By 2011, the relationship between David and his mother was a “friendly one” despite earlier estrangement.
  • David met the statutory “maintenance” threshold because his housing needs were not otherwise secured.
  • His discretionary spending did not negate his underlying accommodation need.
  • The estate could not meet all parties’ full needs, so a fair division had to be made.

The Outcome

The court ordered:

  1. Award to David – 25% of the net estate to secure his housing needs.
  2. Remaining Estate – The remaining 75% of the estate to be shared equally between Ruth and Susan.
  3. Costs Order – Susan to pay three-quarters of David’s former solicitors’ costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  4. Property Purchase – David and Ruth to have six months to buy the property from the estate; failing that, the property to be sold.

Key Points for Will Disputes and Inheritance Claims

  • Accommodation can be maintenance – For adult children, the need for secure housing can justify an award under the 1975 Act.
  • Past family disputes don’t automatically defeat a claim – The court will focus on current needs and resources.
  • Costs risks are real – Losing parties can be ordered to pay a significant share of the other side’s legal costs.
  • Litigation erodes estates – Years of proceedings and possession disputes reduced what was available to divide, underlining the importance of early resolution.

Conclusion

Isaacs v Green shows that even in modest estates and where family history is complicated, an adult child can succeed with a will claim or inheritance claim under the 1975 Act if they demonstrate genuine financial need — particularly for accommodation.

The case also serves as a warning: prolonged litigation not only delays resolution but also diminishes the estate through legal costs, potentially harming all beneficiaries.

If you consider any of these facts and matters are of interest, are likely to apply to you, or you would like to ask us for more information about our no win no fee arrangement, or you simply want us to assess your claim, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a confidential no strings chat and/or visit us at www.willclaim.com.

We provide details about our no win no fee arrangements at https://www.willclaim.com/no-win-no-fee/.

cross