Most people assume that if they leave someone out of their Will, their wishes will be final.

However, a High Court case with links to the Grimsby area demonstrates that matters are not always so straightforward. In the case of Jenna Howe's claim against the estate of her late father, Roger Howe, the Court awarded an estranged adult daughter £125,000 despite her being deliberately excluded from the Will.

The decision has become one of the most discussed inheritance cases of recent years and serves as an important reminder that, in some circumstances, the courts are prepared to intervene where a Will fails to make reasonable financial provision for certain family members.

For families across Grimsby and North East Lincolnshire, the case highlights issues that are increasingly arising in contentious probate disputes.

A family rift and a £1.4 million estate

When Roger died in March 2020, he left behind an estate worth approximately £1.4 million. His Will left his estate to his mother, sister and two nephews, whilst excluding his only daughter, Jenna. The deceased had made clear his reasons for doing so and held strongly negative views about his daughter and their relationship.

The relationship between father and daughter had broken down many years earlier and they had been estranged for a significant period. Initially, Jenna sought to challenge the validity of the Will, alleging that the signature of an attesting witness had been forged. That challenge did not ultimately succeed, and she became liable for costs arising from those proceedings.

Rather than ending there, the dispute moved in a different direction. Jenna subsequently pursued a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, arguing that the Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance.

Why did the claim succeed?

The Court considered evidence regarding Jenna's financial circumstances, health issues and ability to support herself.

She argued that her father's treatment of her throughout childhood and early adulthood had contributed to long-term personal and health difficulties which continued to affect her life and ability to work. Despite the lengthy estrangement, the Court concluded that reasonable financial provision had not been made for her and awarded £125,000 from the estate.

The award included provision for debts, future income needs, therapy and other expenses. The Court also directed that the award be held within a discretionary trust, reflecting concerns about the claimant's circumstances and the need to preserve her entitlement to certain benefits.

The bigger message

At first glance, the outcome may seem surprising. After all, Roger had clearly expressed his intention that his daughter should not benefit from his estate. Yet the Court intervened and altered the practical effect of those wishes.

The case highlights an important principle at the heart of contentious probate disputes: whilst individuals are generally free to leave their estate as they choose, that freedom is not absolute. Where certain categories of applicant can demonstrate that reasonable financial provision has not been made, the Court has the power to step in.

What are we seeing more often in contentious probate claims?

Whilst Howe v Howe was decided on its own particular facts, it reflects several wider trends that we are increasingly seeing in contentious probate disputes.

1.    Adult Children Challenging Their Exclusion

Many people believe that once a child reaches adulthood, they no longer have any claim against a parent's estate. That is increasingly proving not to be the case.

Recent years have seen greater scrutiny of the financial circumstances and needs of adult children who have been excluded from a Will. Cases such as Howe v Howe demonstrate that adult children may still be able to pursue successful claims where reasonable financial provision has not been made.

2.    More Claims Involving Family Estrangement

Family relationships are rarely straightforward.

We are seeing an increasing number of disputes involving periods of estrangement between parents and children, siblings or wider family members. Whilst estrangement remains an important factor, Howe v Howe demonstrates that it does not automatically prevent a claim succeeding. The Court will often look beyond the breakdown in the relationship and examine the wider circumstances.

3.    Greater Scrutiny of Decisions to Exclude Family Members

Where someone chooses to leave a close family member out of their Will, that decision may come under detailed scrutiny if litigation follows.

Courts are increasingly being asked to consider not only what the deceased wanted, but why those decisions were made and whether the resulting outcome leaves a claimant without reasonable financial provision.

Increasingly complex probate disputes

Inheritance disputes are rarely limited to a single issue.

In Howe v Howe , the claimant first challenged the validity of the Will before bringing a separate claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. We regularly see disputes involving multiple issues running alongside one another, including:

• Challenges to the validity of a Will;
• Executor disputes;
• Estate administration concerns; and
• Inheritance Act claims.

A growing focus on vulnerability and financial need

Perhaps one of the clearest messages to emerge from recent case law is the Court's willingness to focus on the practical realities facing claimants.

Financial hardship, health conditions, dependency and vulnerability frequently play a significant role when the Court is deciding whether reasonable financial provision has been made. Howe v Howe is a clear example of this approach.

From Grimsby to the High Court

The circumstances of Howe v Howe may be unusual, but the issues at its heart are not.

Family estrangement, disinheritance, disputes over a loved one's wishes and claims for financial provision are issues that arise in contentious probate disputes across the country. The case serves as a reminder that being left out of a Will is not always the end of the story.

As contentious probate claims continue to evolve, cases such as Howe v Howe provide valuable insight into how the courts are balancing testamentary freedom with the need to make fair provision for those left behind.

As Howe v Howe demonstrates, inheritance disputes are often about far more than the terms of a Will. Family estrangement, exclusion from an estate, questions of financial provision and competing expectations can all give rise to complex legal issues. At Switalskis' Grimsby office, our specialist Contentious Probate team regularly advises clients facing these challenges, helping them navigate disputes with clear, practical advice and expert guidance.