Introduction

Private wealth litigation continues to evolve, with 2025 marking a significant year for Inheritance Act claims and, in particular, for adult child applicants. The decision in Howe v Howe (whereby Andrew Bishop of Rothley Law successfully represented the applicant) was the first major ruling to follow the Supreme Court’s landmark guidance in Hirachand v Hirachand, and has had a notable influence on how courts are approaching provision for financially vulnerable adult children.

The case drew national attention, with headlines suggesting that courts can now “defy your dying wishes”. However, practitioners know the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 has always balanced testamentary freedom against the need to ensure reasonable financial provision for certain categories of claimant. Howe simply reaffirmed existing judicial trends.

Below, we explore how Howe fits into the wider landscape and the key developments shaping private wealth disputes for 2026.

Adult Child Claims: Clear Patterns Are Emerging

The facts in Howe followed a familiar pattern seen in many successful adult child claims:

• The claimant was financially dependent on state support and could not work.
• A joint expert concluded she had significant mental health issues.
• The estate was substantial (over GBP1 million).
• The defendants had no competing needs.
• There was a history of estrangement, but the claimant had made efforts to reconcile.
• The deceased’s exclusion of the claimant was based on character criticisms which the court viewed with caution.

The court awarded GBP125,000, structured to:

• clear debts;
• meet health and therapeutic needs (including reconstructive medical treatment essential to the claimant’s well-being); and
• cover a ten-year income shortfall.

Following Larsen v Annan [2023], the award was placed in a discretionary trust which is now an increasingly common structure to protect means-tested benefits and ensure that vulnerable beneficiaries do not dissipate funds.

The case underscores what many practitioners already recognise: when disability, lack of earning capacity, and a sizeable estate intersect with minimal competing claims, provision is likely. This reflects post-Ilott case law such as Rochford v Rochford and confirms the trend for a more predictable approach to adult child claims, even if outcomes remain fact-specific.

Conduct: A Weak Shield for Defendants

A significant feature of Howe was the defendants’ reliance on the claimant’s conduct:

• She had brought an unsuccessful probate claim, costing the estate GBP42,000.
• She had been convicted (non-violent) of harassing an executor.

Conventional wisdom might suggest these factors would weigh heavily against her, though in these circumstances, they did not. Citing Ilott, the court reiterated that 1975 Act awards are not rewards for good behaviour nor punishments for bad. Historic authorities such as Re Borthwick echo this principle in that conduct cannot be the deciding factor between leaving a claimant destitute or provided for.

Even in extreme cases such as Land v Land, where the claimant had been convicted of manslaughter of the deceased, provision had still been made. The logic remains consistent: criminal responsibility is dealt with through the criminal justice system and not through disinheritance under the 1975 Act.

For 2026, the practical takeaway is clear: conduct arguments rarely defeat a well-founded needs-based claim, particularly where disability and financial hardship are involved. Defendants should deploy such arguments with caution.

The Rise of Debt as Maintenance Claims

A notable development in Howe was the treatment of debts as part of the claimant’s maintenance needs.

The claimant sought provision to repay the GBP42,000 costs order incurred from her failed probate challenge. The court accepted this as a legitimate debt to be cleared within the 1975 Act award. This mirrors the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hirachand, which recognised that legal costs can, in principle, form part of maintenance. Hirachand also warned that litigation costs of the Inheritance Act proceedings cannot be claimed as need, and that future or contingent costs remain conceptually difficult to address at trial. This creates strategic considerations:

• Claimants may need to choose whether to pursue validity and 1975 Act claims together or sequentially.
• Defendants may argue that costs of a hopeless or abandoned challenge should not be recoverable as “debts”.
• Courts may increasingly look at the proportionality and conduct of litigation when assessing such claims.

As combined validity/1975 Act claims become more common, mediation is likely to play an even greater role in resolving disputes efficiently.

Welfare-Driven Awards and the Growth of Protected Structures

Howe highlights another important trend: the courts’ increasing willingness to tailor awards around:

• mental health needs;
• therapeutic and medical interventions; and
• protective mechanisms (eg, discretionary trusts).

Awards are becoming more holistic, aimed at long-term stability rather than short-term cash injections. Practitioners should expect to see more orders structured to:

• preserve benefits;
• reduce financial vulnerability; and
• ensure funds are applied for genuine maintenance needs.

This is particularly relevant where claimants often present with complex social and financial circumstances.

What Howe and Wider Case Law Tell Us About 2026

Viewed alongside two decades of authority, Howe simply reinforces a consistent judicial pattern: vulnerable adult children with genuine financial or welfare needs are increasingly likely to receive provision, even from modest estates and despite imperfect relationships or evidence.

Vulnerability and need equal a strong likelihood of provision

A long line of cases shows courts making awards where adult children face health issues, limited earning capacity or financial hardship:

• SH v NH [2020]: Despite 20 years’ estrangement and a competing ill beneficiary, the applicant received GBP122,168 from a GBP554,000 estate.
• Nahajec v Fowle [2017]: The applicant could work and had only a tenuous relationship, yet received GBP30,000 from a GBP264,279 estate.
• Espinosa v Bourke [1999]: A daughter with doubtful working capacity received GBP60,000 from a GBP196,000 estate; the court rejected any “heavy burden” on adult children.
• Myersf v Myers [2004]: An applicant with long-term health issues received over GBP500,000 in structured provision.
• Rochford v Rochford [2021]: Despite owning property worth GBP497,000, the claimant received GBP85,000 due to her income deficit and absence of competing needs.
• Fennessy v Turner [2022]: A claimant in “necessitous circumstances” received GBP177,500 from a GBP360,371 estate.
• Higgins v Morgan [2021]: The applicant with working capacity and weak evidence still received GBP40,800.
• Dignam-Thomas v McCourt [2023]: Two daughters shared awards of GBP70,000, GBP90,000 and GBP173,000 from a GBP329,827 estate.

The message is consistent in that, where need is demonstrated, provision usually follows.

Conduct rarely defeats a needs-based claim

From Ilott to Land v Land, conduct has long been a weak defence. Howe continues this line: even litigation misconduct or criminal convictions will not usually outweigh genuine financial or welfare needs.

Debt and costs are increasingly included in “maintenance”

Post-Hirachand, legitimate debts, including some litigation-related liabilities, can form part of reasonable provision. Howe continues this pragmatic trend, and courts are likely to see more debt-based claims in 2026.

Courts favour welfare-focused, structured awards

Across cases such as Myers, Rochford, and Dignam-Thomas, courts are using trusts and structured orders to deliver long-term stability. Howe aligns with this movement, particularly in protecting benefits and vulnerable claimants through discretionary trusts.

The 2026 Outlook

Taking Howe together with the surrounding authorities, several principles are now firmly embedded:

• Vulnerable adult children are increasingly likely to receive provision – even from modest estates.
• Conduct is rarely determinative unless extreme and directly relevant.
• Debts and litigation liabilities will continue to feature in maintenance assessments.
• Trusts and structured awards are now mainstream.
• Courts prioritise realistic need over morality or family dynamics.

For practitioners in the North West, these cases confirm that adult child claims remain on a predictable upward trajectory.