Howe v Howe: estranged adult child awarded £125,000 in 1975 Act claim

2 Apr 2025 | 3 minute read

Background

Roger Howe (the "Deceased") died on 27 March 2020, leaving behind an estate of £1.4 million. Jenna Howe (the "Claimant"), aged 37, was the sole child of the Deceased but she did not benefit under his will, dated 4 July 2017 (the "Will"). The Deceased had repeatedly expressed negative views of the Claimant, describing her as "lazy", "useless", "greedy" and "addicted to drugs". The Will left the Deceased's estate to his mother, sister, and two nephews.

The Claimant initially sought to have the Will set aside, claiming that the signature of an attesting witness had been forged. The witness died and the Claimant then lost her pro bono solicitor, meaning that little progress was made with this challenge. She found new legal representation and sought permission to introduce new expert evidence but the Court denied the application. Subsequently, the she withdrew her claim and agreed to pay £42,000 in relation to the executors’ costs ("Costs Order").

The Claimant then issued a claim against the Deceased's estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 ("the 1975 Act Claim") seeking reasonable financial provision for her maintenance – specifically, a sum of £450,000 from the estate.

In the meantime, the executors assigned the Costs Order to a company, Leck Holdings Limited, which then served a statutory demand on the Claimant for payment. In response, the Claimant applied to have the statutory demand set aside. This application was dismissed in the first instance by the County Court at Croydon but, in an appeal judgment (Howe v Leck Holdings Limited), the company was held to be unable to enforce the Costs Order pending the resolution of the 1975 Act Claim. This was on the basis that the Claimant appeared to have "a counterclaim, set off or cross-demand" which equalled or exceeded the amount of the debt specified in the statutory demand.

The 1975 Act Claim progressed to trial. The Claimant's position was that her childhood had been overshadowed by her father's neglect and cruelty. The Claimant's barrister, James McKean, told the Judge that the Deceased's treatment of her as a child and young adult had "shaped the rest of her life" and that a direct link could be drawn between that and her need for financial provision.

Decision

The Judge ruled that the Will did not provide reasonable financial provision for the Claimant and awarded £125,000, with the sum to be held on discretionary trust to ensure it was used responsibly, and to protect the Claimant's future interests.

Although the Claimant had been estranged from the Deceased for some time, the Judge found her health issues, which prevented her from working, to be a compelling reason for provision. However, the Judge rejected the Claimant's request for accommodation assistance, on the basis that her accommodation was funded by the local authority.

The award from the estate was structured to:

pay the Claimant’s debts;
fund essential purchases, such as a car and white goods;
provide for her health needs, including therapy and necessary breast implants to increase her confidence; and
cover an income shortfall for ten years.

Points to note

The notion that claims by estranged adult children under the 1975 Act are unlikely to succeed unless a moral obligation is shown is steadily losing credibility. While the awards are rarely extravagant, they are frequent enough to establish that this category of claimant may still receive financial provision if they demonstrate a legitimate need.

This case is also interesting for its handling of the Costs Order. The Claimant was spared from the enforcement of the Costs Order until after the hearing of the 1975 Act Claim, which occurred over three years later. In addition, the Claimant ultimately received an award that made part provision for it. This was justified on the grounds that: