When good conduct counts

The additional "something" in adult-child 1975 Act claims

Emma Germany

Adult-child claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 occupy an uneasy place in the law of family provision. Following Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461 and the Supreme Court's decision in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, it is well settled that an adult child of working age who is capable of earning their own living must show something beyond mere blood relation and necessitous circumstances before the court will interfere with the deceased's dispositions. Quite what that additional "something" must be remains the elusive question in virtually every adult-child claim. Might the additional "something" be found as much in the claimant's conduct and the quality of their relationship with the deceased, as in any conduct on the deceased's part? The recent decision of Caroline Shea KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, in McDaniel v Talbot [2026] EWHC 928 (Ch) adds helpfully to the existing body of authority in illustrating what might constitute that additional "something".