How a Failure to Review a Will Can Lead to a Dispute: Lessons from McDaniel v Talbot (2026)

The decision in McDaniel v Talbot (2026) offers a useful illustration of how adult child claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”) can succeed, even where the claimant has long been excluded from a Will.

It highlights a recurring theme in these cases: Firstly, the importance of looking at the reality of the relationship at the date of death, rather than the snapshot captured in an outdated Will. Secondly, and one perhaps we are all guilty of, regularly checking and updating our will to reflect our wishes.

The factual background

Emma McDaniel was completely excluded from her father’s estate under a will executed in 2014, at a time when there had been no meaningful contact between them for decades. However, in the years before his death, the position changed significantly. From 2019 onwards:

• Father and daughter reconnected and their relationship developed into a close and supportive bond
• There were ongoing discussions about providing financial assistance and integrating Emma more fully into family life
• Despite this shift, the will was never updated, and the estate (valued at approximately £1.57 million) passed entirely to the surviving spouse.

The legal challenge

Emma brought a claim under the 1975 Act on the basis that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance. For adult children, the courts apply a relatively restrictive standard:

• Provision is limited to what is required for maintenance, not general benefit
• Financial need is central but not determinative on its own

The exercise remains a broad evaluative one, balancing factors such as need, resources, obligations, and the nature of the relationship.

The court’s analysis

The court found that Emma was in a financially vulnerable position. Although she was managing to meet her expenses, her income left no margin for unexpected costs, and her ability to improve her situation was limited by significant caring responsibilities (her two disabled children, her husband and paternal grandmother). As a result, she was effectively living at a subsistence level.

In assessing the claim, the court focused on the relationship at the time of death rather than earlier estrangement. While there had been a long period without contact, this had been replaced by a genuine and close father–daughter relationship, with Emma actively involved in her father’s life and treated as part of the family with “mutual trust and friendliness”.

The court also identified a factor beyond financial need, which is typically required in adult child claims. Here, Emma’s extensive caring responsibilities and the re-established relationship with her father amounted to a “special circumstance” that justified intervention.

Although the deceased had clearly intended to exclude Emma, this was given reduced weight on the basis that the reasons stated in the will, namely the lack of contact, no longer accurately reflected the reality at the time of his death. It was also relevant that the estrangement was not of Emma’s choosing, but her father’s.

The outcome - What exactly is ‘reasonable’ provision?

It was held that the will failed to provide reasonable financial provision and made an award designed to meet Emma’s maintenance needs.

Accordingly, she was awarded a lump sum to clear her existing debts plus a further sum (via a discretionary structure) intended to provide a modest financial buffer. The total award amounted to just over £123,000, representing a relatively small proportion of the estate.

Importantly, the court resisted making a larger capital provision (such as housing), emphasising that the purpose of the Act is to meet needs, not to redistribute wealth, thereby preserving testamentary freedom.