David Marcus Isaacs v Michael Anthony Green & Ors

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, an adult child must show that the deceased’s disposition failed to make reasonable financial provision for the child’s maintenance. Need is necessary but not sufficient. The court must assess all relevant circumstances, including the claimant’s needs and resources, the needs of beneficiaries, the deceased’s obligations, the estate, disability and conduct. Maintenance may include accommodation and may be provided by lump sum. Legal costs incurred in the proceedings are governed by the applicable costs regime and are not included in the substantive needs assessment. The court must balance the claimant’s needs against competing beneficiaries and the finite estate.

The claimant, an adult son excluded from his mother’s will, applied under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision from her estate. The estate principally comprised the former family home. The claimant, one sister and the opposing sister were all elderly and had financial needs; the claimant and the opposing sister also had significant health-related circumstances.

The central issues were whether the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant’s maintenance, what order should be made, how competing needs should be balanced, and whether the parties’ liabilities for legal costs should be included in assessing financial resources.

1. Claim allowed in part. The will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. He had a genuine need for provision safeguarding accommodation, even though he did not demonstrate an immediate income shortfall. His current accommodation depended on the estate and on his sister’s continuing support, to which he had no legal entitlement.
2. The court applied the broad-brush approach described in Ilott v The Blue Cross & Others [2017] UKSC 17. It considered the statutory factors in section 3(1), including the parties’ financial resources and needs, health, the deceased’s obligations, the estate’s size and the family circumstances. Need was necessary but not sufficient, and conduct was not treated as a basis for reward or punishment.
3. Maintenance was not confined to subsistence. It could include accommodation, a reasonable level of ordinary living expenditure and provision by lump sum. The claimant’s collecting hobby was not wholly excluded from consideration, although the award had to reflect his limited means and the finite estate.
4. The claimant’s potential liability for legal costs in these proceedings was excluded from the assessment of his needs and resources. Following Jassal v Shah [2024] EWHC 2214 (Ch), as approved in Hirachand v Hirachand [2024] UKSC 43, such costs were governed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The same approach was applied consistently to the beneficiary’s litigation costs.
5. The appropriate substantive provision was 25% of the residuary estate. The balance was divided equally between the two sisters. The court declined to require an account for past rent-free occupation, but made supplemental orders under section 2(4), including compensation for continued occupation after the order and time to purchase the property or rehouse.
6. On consequential orders, the claimant and his supporting sister were given six months to purchase the property or find alternative accommodation. They were required to pay the opposing sister £1,125 monthly for continued occupation until purchase or vacation. Costs followed the event, subject to a moderate discount for conduct-related matters.