Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Claims
How to challenge a will (or intestacy) on the basis that reasonable financial provision was not made for a spouse, civil partner, former spouse, cohabitant, child, or person treated as a child of the deceased.
Wprowadzenie
English law has historically protected testamentary freedom — a testator may dispose of their estate however they wish. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides a statutory exception: certain people can apply to the court for 'reasonable financial provision' from a deceased's estate where the will (or intestacy rules) failed to provide adequately for them. The court does not rewrite the will; it makes an award (lump sum, periodical payments, transfer of property, settlement) where statutory criteria are met. Applications must be made within 6 months of the grant of probate or letters of administration (s.4) — extensions are rare and require strong reasons. The Act applies in England and Wales only. Scotland has its own succession-rights regime (Legal Rights for spouses, civil partners, and children under the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964).
In Brief
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 lets eligible applicants (spouses, civil partners, former spouses, cohabitants of 2+ years, children, persons treated as a child, persons maintained by the deceased) claim reasonable financial provision from a deceased's estate where the will or intestacy didn't make adequate provision. The claim must be made within 6 months of the grant of probate. The court weighs financial needs and resources, the deceased's obligations, conduct, and the size of the estate.
Podstawowe zasady
Eligible applicants (s.1) — spouse / civil partner; former spouse / civil partner who has not remarried; cohabitant (2+ years immediately before death); child; person treated as a child of the family; any person being maintained by the deceased.
Reasonable financial provision (s.1(2)) — for spouse/civil partner: such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to receive (no 'maintenance' restriction). For all others: such financial provision as it would be reasonable to receive for maintenance.
Factors (s.3) — applicant's financial resources/needs; obligations and responsibilities of the deceased; size and nature of estate; any physical or mental disability; conduct of the applicant or any other person; (for spouse) the divorce hypothesis (s.3(2)).
Time limit (s.4) — application must be made within 6 months of the grant. Extension only on serious grounds (Berger v Berger [2013] EWCA Civ 1305 — high threshold).
Standing for child claimants — adult children can claim (Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 reaffirmed) but must show factors weighing in their favour beyond the parent-child relationship alone.
Cohabitant route — 2+ years of cohabitation immediately before death required (s.1(1A)); the relationship test is fact-specific (Re Watson [1999] 1 FLR 878).
Section 9 — joint property passing by survivorship can be treated as part of the net estate for the purpose of an order if the court considers it just to do so.
Kluczowe ustawy
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Family Law Reform Act 1995
Civil Partnership Act 2004
Wiodące orzeczenia
Ilott v The Blue Cross (Mitson)
[2017] UKSC 17
Berger v Berger
[2013] EWCA Civ 1305
Re Coventry (deceased)
[1980] Ch 461
Re Watson (deceased)
[1999] 1 FLR 878
Wright v Waters
[2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an adult child claim under the 1975 Act?
Yes — eligibility is by status (s.1(1)(c)) not by minority. But the court applies the s.3 factors strictly; the bare fact of being an adult child is not enough. Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 confirmed adult children can claim, but the court considers financial needs, the deceased's reasons for excluding the child, the testator's relationship with the chosen beneficiary, and other s.3 factors. Adult-child claims succeed only in restricted circumstances.
What is the deadline for bringing an Inheritance Act claim?
Six months from the date of the grant of probate or letters of administration (s.4 Inheritance Act 1975). The court has discretion to extend this time limit (s.4) but rarely does — Berger v Berger [2013] sets a high bar. Reasons for delay must be substantial and not attributable to negligence by the applicant or their legal advisers.
How is 'cohabitant' defined for these claims?
Section 1(1A)/(1B) requires the applicant to have been living in the same household as the deceased, as the deceased's spouse or civil partner (or in a similar relationship), for at least 2 years immediately before the deceased's death. The 'as if' test looks at the nature of the relationship — financial interdependence, shared household, public presentation as a couple. Re Watson [1999] is the classic authority.
Can a 1975 Act claim 'reach' jointly-owned property that passed by survivorship?
Potentially. Section 9 lets the court treat property passing by survivorship as part of the net estate available to satisfy an order, where the court considers it just. The court considers the share the deceased could have severed by notice; commonly applied where the joint tenancy was used as an alternative to a will to defeat a likely 1975 Act claim.
Official Resources
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help