What does “reasonable financial provision” actually mean? Lessons from McDaniel v Talbot  

In the absence of a clear definition of what ‘reasonable financial provision’ actually means, The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 gives entitlement that some family members, or persons, who were dependant on the person who has died, may seek ‘reasonable financial provision’ from the deceased’s estate. The circumstances of each case however means that no two claims are the same.  

Where someone is not provided for under a Will or an intestate estate fails to make provision for them, there is recourse under certain circumstances under The 1975 Act.  

A recent High Court judgment, McDaniel v Talbot & Anor [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch), provides a useful illustration of how the courts approach claims relating to children of the deceased and touches on what does “reasonable financial provision” actually mean in practice, and how does a court decide whether a claim succeeds. This case provides a useful illustration of how the courts approach those questions in practice, and the lessons it offers.  

The background Mark Talbot died suddenly in October 2022. His Will, executed in 2014, left his entire estate, valued at approximately £1.5 million, to his wife and made no provision at all for his daughter, Emma McDaniel. At the time the Will was made, that exclusion reflected the reality of their relationship: Mr Talbot had fathered Ms McDaniel from a previous relationship and had left her when she was only eight months old. For much of her life, they had no contact. 

What the Will could not account for was what happened later. In the years before his death, the two had reconciled. Ms McDaniel had rebuilt a relationship with her father and had provided care for him during that period. When he died suddenly, the Will still in force was one written during the estrangement. It had never been updated to reflect the relationship that had replaced it. 

Ms McDaniel brought a successful claim under the 1975 Act and was awarded £123,418 from her father’s estate. 

What the 1975 Act allows 

The 1975 Act allows a child of the deceased, of any age, to ask the court to step in where a Will or intestacy estate has failed to make reasonable financial provision for them 

For an adult child, claims are limited to what they require for their maintenance. It is not a claim of fairness or equality but one which must be genuine for unmet financial needs. The Court will consider several factors including financial needs, the size of the state, the relationship between the testator and the claimant, conduct, other beneficiaries and their needs and whether the deceased had a ‘moral’ obligation to the claimant.  

There is not a definitive explanation concerning whether the testator has a moral obligation. In the absence of such, there is leading caselaw where the courts rejected the requirement of whether a moral claim had to be established but rather ‘something more’ other than a parent-child relationship in order to override the testators wishes.  

Examples of where the courts have considered ‘something more’ to the benefit of the applicant includes:

• where a testator was concerned about the financial implications of her son’s divorce and made a decision to award him less under her estate 
• where an applicant’s financial position was directed attributed to the neglect received by her father during adolescence which meant she could not work and had a history of taking drugs
• where an applicant had been assured by the testator that he would inherit from the estate
• where an estrangement was found to have stemmed from the testator and not the applicant 

What the court can award an adult child is provision for their maintenance which can include everyday financial needs, capital for housing or education or medical needs. The court’s task is to consider whether financial provision is needed to meet the claimant’s reasonable maintenance needs in light of all the circumstances. 

This means that a claim will not succeed just because the applicant has been treated unfairly or that siblings were favoured more generously, or that the relationship was close and the exclusion feels unjust. Financial need is at the heart of these claims, and it has to be properly quantified.  

How the court assessed Ms McDaniel’s claim 

The court examined Ms McDaniel’s financial position in detail. She and her husband both had income from employment, benefits, and pension, and on the surface she appeared to be managing. A closer look told a different story. She carried approximately £20,000 of debt. She was the primary carer for two adult children with severe learning and physical disabilities, which significantly affected her ability to work and placed ongoing financial pressure on the household. She also had her own health difficulties. Upon the Court assessing all of these factors, the judge concluded that Ms McDaniel was someone who was just able to make ends meet, with no financial buffer and no capacity for any discretionary spending whatsoever. The judge described her as a “necessitous claimant.” 

The award of £123,418 was calculated directly from that analysis. It was structured to clear her debts and to provide what the judge identified as a reasonable buffer for ongoing expenses, together with some measure of financial freedom she had never previously had. It was not a share of the estate calculated by any general principle of fairness; it was a figure grounded in what she actually needed. 

The court also took into account the care Ms McDaniel had provided to her father, during their reconciled years but also for his elderly mother. The judge treated that as a factor that added moral weight to the claim. The judgment was clear, however, that providing care and rebuilding a relationship do not in themselves entitle someone to a financial award. Those factors supported the claim; financial need was its foundation. 

The case is also a reminder that family relationships are rarely static. An estrangement that existed when a Will was prepared may later be repaired, sometimes many years later. If a Will is never revisited, it may no longer reflect the reality of those relationships when death occurs, with significant consequences for everyone involved. 

As the 1975 Act requires, the court also considered the financial position of the other beneficiary, Mr Talbot’s widow. She was found to be financially comfortable in her own right and well provided for under the estate. The court was satisfied that an award could be made for Ms McDaniel without affecting the widow’s standard of living. That question, whether provision for one person will come at real cost to another, is one the court must consider when determining any award. Where an estate is modest or a beneficiary is more financially dependent on it, the outcome may well be different. 

What this means if you are considering a claim 

Financial provision claims are built on evidence. The court does not proceed on the basis of general accounts of hardship or a sense that things were unfair. It expects documented, quantified financial information: bank statements, a clear picture of income and outgoings, records of debt, and where health affects the ability to work or creates ongoing costs, medical evidence to support that. Coming to a claim with clear, honest, and thorough financial documentation is not just good preparation; it is essential. 

These claims are also determined entirely on their own facts. The outcome in any given case will depend on the size of the estate, the financial position and needs of the other beneficiaries, the nature of the relationship between the claimant and the deceased, and the specific financial circumstances of the person bringing the claim.  

Many people are understandably unsure whether they have grounds to bring a claim, particularly where family relationships have been complicated or have changed over time. Early legal advice can help you understand how the court is likely to view your circumstances, what evidence may be required, and whether pursuing a claim is likely to be worthwhile. 

The same is true if you are a beneficiary if you are faced with defending a claim for financial provision. Understanding the strength of a potential claim against the estate, and preparing the financial evidence that will be needed to respond to it, requires the same careful and thorough approach. 

These types of claims also require sensitivity and open-mindedness from everyone involved. The circumstances that give rise to them can include estrangement, reconciliation, complex family histories, financial vulnerability and are rarely straightforward. The people dealing with these claims are often dealing with grief as well as legal uncertainty. A sensible, measured approach with a view to reaching an early resolution should be the focus for all involved. i. 

A claim under the 1975 Act must be brought within six months of the date on which a grant of probate is issued. This is a strict time limit. The court does have discretion to allow a claim to proceed after that deadline, but that discretion is rarely exercised. It is also worth knowing that the six-month period runs from the grant of probate rather than from the date of death. If you were not aware of the death, or did not know that probate had been granted, your position may be more nuanced. Taking advice based on your own specific circumstances is key.  

The importance of keeping your Will up to date 

The case also illustrates what can happen when a Will is not reviewed as life changes. Mr Talbot’s Will had not been updated after his reconciliation with Ms McDaniel. Had it have been, the claim may not have been required.  

If your own Will was written at a time when your family circumstances were significantly different, whether that be a change in relationships, additional family members, or previous estrangements have been repaired, it is worth considering whether it still reflects your current intentions.  

Important lessons 

McDaniel v Talbot demonstrates that claims under the 1975 Act are not decided by broad notions of fairness or by simply asking whether someone deserved more from an estate. The court’s focus remains on the evidence, the claimant’s financial circumstances, and whether reasonable financial provision has been made in light of all the relevant factors.  

If you would like confidential, practical guidance on avoiding or resolving an inheritance dispute, Coodes’ Inheritance Disputes team is always here to help.  

About the Author: Jodie Walmsley is an experienced litigator at Coodes, specialising in contentious probate matters including a broad range of inheritance and estate disputes – challenges to the validity of wills, claims under Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, dispute involving executors and trustees, claims relating to revocation of wills and breaches of fiduciary duties. 

Get in Touch: jodie.walmsley@coodes.co.uk 01736 352233