COCKELL V COCKELL, HOW JOINTLY OWNED PROPERTY CAN UNDERMINE A CLAIM FOR FINANCIAL PROVISION
Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors consider the new case Cockell v Cockell and others [2025] EWHC 2490 (Ch) which shows how jointly owned property can undermine a claim for financial provision
Adult Child Claims Under the Inheritance Act: Lessons from Cockell v Cockell [2025] EWHC 2490 (Ch)
When a person dies leaving little or nothing to an adult child, questions often arise about how to contest a will or make an inheritance claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
A recent High Court decision, Cockell v Cockell & Others [2025] EWHC 2490 (Ch), offers important guidance on when an adult child’s will dispute or estate claim is likely to succeed — and, crucially, when it is not.
For a link to the actual decision please go to:
Cockell v Cockell & Anor [2025] EWHC 2490 (Ch) (03 October 2025)
Background to the Case
The case concerned the estate of Dennis Edward Cockell, who died in October 2022 aged 73.
Mr Cockell left behind his widow, Mrs Fong Yuet Cockell, to whom he had been married for around forty years, and an adult daughter from a previous relationship, Ms Cindylee Cockell, living in Australia.
At the time of his death, Mr Cockell’s main asset was the family home at 9 Hillside Grove, Stanmore, worth about £431,000. The property was owned jointly with his wife, meaning that it passed automatically to her upon his death by the rule of survivorship. His residual estate amounted to less than £2,000.
Feeling unfairly excluded, Ms Cockell brought an inheritance claim under the Inheritance Act 1975, arguing that her father had failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance.
As an adult child of the deceased, Ms Cockell was perfectly entitled to bring such a claim (even though she hadn’t been financially supported by the deceased); however, these circumstances make it much more difficult to claim, particular where (as here) there was a competing claim by the deceased’s spouse of many years. Moreover, as she had held the primary estate property jointly with her late husband (the deceased) in a way (as a so- called “joint tenancy”) whereby on his death it was inherited outright by her and outside of his estate, the estate value was reduced dramatically to practically nothing. Whilst there is a way of bringing it back in by using s. 9 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the Judge in this case did not consider it to be in the interests of justice to do so.
For more information on what might constitute a winnable claim please refer to our earlier blog:
Winnable Claims Under the Inheritance Act 1975 by Adult Children – Will Claim Solicitors
The Widow’s Position
Mrs Cockell opposed the inheritance claim, arguing that:
- The estate was very modest, as the only substantial asset was the jointly-owned home.
- She was herself financially dependent, in poor health, and had no other resources.
- She had been entirely unaware of the existence of her husband’s adult daughter until after his death.
She also explained that she had entrusted her husband with money to buy a property “the Phoenix Court apartment” as a retirement investment, but the property was never purchased and the funds could not be traced.
The Court’s Decision
Master Bowles dismissed the claim.
He held that there had been no failure to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant and that Mr Cockell acted entirely reasonably in leaving his estate to his wife.
The judge confirmed that the court will not sever a joint tenancy (to create an estate interest for a claimant) under section 9 of the Inheritance Act unless there are compelling reasons. He explains at paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Judgment:
- There are circumstances, where, as it seems to me, it would, or might, be just to make an order under section 9. If, for example, a property had been transferred from the sole name of the deceased into the joint names of the deceased and another, on the basis of a beneficial joint tenancy, either for the purpose of taking the property out of the deceased’s estate, or by way of a gift to the transferee of his, or her, interest under the joint tenancy, then I can well see that it might be just, in appropriate circumstances, to make an order under section 9 and, thereby, restoring at least a part of the gifted, or transferred property to the deceased’s estate. The same might apply if the property had been purchased in joint names, under a beneficial joint tenancy, with monies provided only by the deceased and where, therefore, there had been a clear element of gift in favour of the co-owner.
- Where, however, as in this case, the two co-owners have worked together to purchase the property, in the contemplation that the property would go to the survivor, it does not seem to me that, in the absence of circumstances whereby the surviving co-owner, himself, or herself, owed some form of obligation to the applicant, proper grounds exist to divest the survivor of, in effect, up to one half of his, or her vested property.
Even if the joint tenancy had been severed, the court would not have considered it fair or just to interfere with the widow’s vested interest, given her financial circumstances and the small size of the estate.
Adult Child Claims Under the Inheritance Act
This case is a powerful reminder that adult children rarely succeed in inheritance claims where:
- They were financially independent of the deceased,
- There was little or no relationship, and
- The estate is small or required for the surviving spouse’s support.
The court referred to established authorities such as Re Beaney [1978] 1 WLR 770, Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461, and the leading Supreme Court case of Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, confirming that the moral and financial obligations owed to an adult child are generally limited.
In Cockell v Cockell, the judge made clear that it was entirely reasonable for the deceased to prioritise his long-term wife, who depended on their home for her security, over an adult daughter who had been self-supporting for many years.
Key Lessons for Those Considering a Will Claim or Estate Contest
- A surviving spouse’s needs come first
Courts are very reluctant to deprive a widow or widower of their home or main source of support. - Adult child claims must show real need or dependency
An adult child must show that they were financially or otherwise dependent on the deceased to bring a strong inheritance claim in particular where these is a compelling competing need by an existing beneficiary. - Estrangement matters
Long-term absence of contact or a distant relationship can significantly weaken a will contest or estate dispute. - The size of the estate is critical
If the estate is small, there may simply be nothing left to distribute — even if the claimant’s need is genuine.
Practical Takeaway: When and How to Contest a Will
If you believe you have been unfairly left out of a will or estate, you may be able to make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
This can apply to:
- Adult children
- Cohabitees or partners
- Financial dependants, or
- Spouses who receive inadequate provision.
However, as Cockell v Cockell shows, not every will dispute or estate claim will succeed. The courts will balance the moral duty owed to a claimant against the practical and financial needs of the surviving spouse and other beneficiaries.
Before bringing an inheritance claim or will contest, it’s important to obtain early legal advice to assess the merits and avoid unnecessary cost.
How Will Claim Can Help
At Will Claim Solicitors, we specialise in contesting wills, will disputes, and inheritance claims on a no win, no fee basis. If you suspect a loved one was pressured into making a will, we can:
- Review the circumstances and available evidence.
- Advise whether you have grounds to dispute the will.
- Guide you through the legal process to protect your inheritance rights.
Visit us at www.willclaim.com