The case of Howe v Howe heard recently in January 2025 involved Jenna Howe, 37, bringing a claim against the estate of her late father, Roger Howe, famed for his involvement in Pirate Radio.

Inheritance Act claims

Adult children not named in their parent’s Will can bring a claim in the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. They can do so on the basis the Will does not make reasonable financial provision for them. They should only do so if they have a financial need.

Uphill Battle

Adult children in financial need can find it a bit  of an uphill battle, although those  dependent on the parent financially up to the parent’s death are more likely to succeed.

A Moral Obligation?

If the adult child was not financially dependent on the parent, the feeling has been that the adult child would at least have to show something extra such as a moral obligation that existed between the adult and child; for example, a loose promise at some point made by the parent that their estate or part of it would go to the adult child.

Comparison – Spouses and young children

Other categories of Claimant have it much easier.  If Roger Howe had left a wife and his wife had not been provided for in the Will, it would be a surprise if the Wife did not  recover something from the Estate, all things being equal. A young child in financial need bringing a claim against their parent’s estate is also very likely to succeed.

The facts in Howe v Howe

In the case of Howe v Howe, the Court heard that Roger and Jenna (Roger’s only child)  had become estranged. He excluded her from his Will and made it clear he did not want her to inherit from him. His estate went to his mother, sister and nephews. As Jenna was estranged from Roger, she was not financially dependent on him. But the Judge refused to accept the claim should fail due to a lack of moral obligation.  Jenna had some health issues and the Judge found that Jenna’s medical needs should entitle her to some provision.

“Lazy”, “Useless”, “Grasping” and “Druggy.” 

According to Jenna’s barrister, the Father called Jenna “lazy”, “useless”, “grasping” and “druggy”.  Conversely, Jenna’s barrister (as reported by the Daily Mail)  called Roger’s conduct into account as Roger had  belittled Jenna and made fun of her weight when she suffered from bulimia as a teenager. Even though the court was entitled to consider Jenna’s conduct as a factor as to why she should not inherit, it did not do so.

Award made to Jenna

The estate was about £1.4 million in size, although had recently decreased in value. The Judge awarded Jenna an amount to cover her debts, pay for a car, cover her health needs and satisfy her likely income shortfall over the next ten years.  It was put in Trust so that it did not effect her benefit entitlement.  She also claimed a huge amount of money (£315,000)  for a house, but that was refused on the basis she already had accommodation.

Court’s Approach softening?

There is a view that the Courts’ approach to claims made by Adult Children in financial need is softening. It may be but it is difficult to tell. Each case will turn on its own facts. Had the estate been smaller, or had Roger other children that he made provision for, or Jenna not had specific health needs, perhaps the Judge’s decision would be different. If the Adult Children do succeed, they may have to temper their expectations as to the amount they receive.

We can help

If you wish to make an Inheritance Act claim or are a beneficiary in an estate where an Inheritance Act claim has been threatened, It is important that a legal professional analyses the case. Our litigation team at Ridley & Hall solicitors have the expertise to assist.

Gareth Jones – Solicitor