July 31, 2026
Why careful Will‑drafting and open discussion are essential to avoid costly disputes
In England and Wales, every adult has testamentary freedom—the right to leave their estate to whomever they choose. However, this freedom is not absolute. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”) allows certain close family members and dependants to challenge a Will if they believe it fails to make reasonable financial provision for them.
These claims can be emotionally draining, time‑consuming, and expensive, often delaying probate for months or even years.
The High Court case Miles & Anor v Shearer [2021] EWHC 1000 (Ch) is a powerful reminder of how these disputes arise—and how they can be avoided through careful planning, clear communication, and professional guidance.
The case involved two adult daughters, Juliet and Lauretta, who brought claims against the estate of their father, Anthony (“Tony”) Shearer. Tony died in 2017. His Will, dated 2 February 2015, made no provision for either daughter or their children. Instead, his residuary estate passed entirely to his second wife, Pamela, who was also appointed executor.
• They had enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle growing up.
• Their father had supported them financially for many years.
• They had ongoing financial needs and were entitled to reasonable financial provision.
• Tony had made substantial lifetime gifts to both daughters.
• He had clearly communicated that they should not expect further financial support.
• He had no continuing obligations towards them at the time of his death.
The High Court dismissed both claims, finding that Tony had no ongoing responsibility to maintain his adult daughters and that his Will reflected his genuine and freely‑made wishes.
Lifetime gifts and “legacy”
In early 2008, a flat in Holland Road was sold. From the proceeds, Tony gave:
• £177,000 to Juliet
• £185,000 to Lauretta
Although the daughters had beneficial interests in the property, the judge accepted that Tony was the ultimate source of the funds and treated these payments as substantial lifetime gifts. Pamela’s evidence was that Tony regarded this money as effectively their legacy, intended to be invested wisely in property, and that they should not expect further significant financial assistance.
Both daughters did in fact use the funds to purchase property.
Clear communication of intentions
Tony wrote a series of letters to his daughters in 2008 and 2009. In one letter to Lauretta, he stated:
“So I think that you have already received almost everything that you can expect… But from now on you are on your own financially.”
He explained that:
• He had spent a great deal of money providing their family lifestyle, education and deposits.
• He and Pamela intended to live a long time and spend their money.
• There was unlikely to be much to pass on.
These letters were coherent, detailed and consistent. The Court accepted that they represented Tony’s own views, not something imposed on him by Pamela.
Adult children and “maintenance” under the 1975 Act
Under the 1975 Act, adult children are generally entitled only to reasonable provision for maintenance, not an automatic share of the estate simply because they are family.
In assessing the daughters’ claims, the Court considered:
• Their current financial positions.
• Their earning capacity.
• Their lifestyle choices and independence.
• The support available from other family members (including their mother).
The judge concluded that neither daughter had shown a level of need that justified altering Tony’s testamentary decisions.
Estrangement and family dynamics
The evidence showed periods of estrangement and tension between Tony and his daughters, particularly Juliet. The Court examined:
• The reasons for the breakdown in relationships.
• Tony’s attempts to explain his actions and reconcile.
• The daughters’ attitudes and expectations.
Estrangement does not automatically defeat a claim, but it is part of the overall picture. Here, it reinforced the conclusion that Tony had no ongoing obligation to provide for his adult daughters.
The judge emphasised that testamentary freedom remains a fundamental principle. The Court will not rewrite a Will simply because family members feel disappointed or entitled. It will only intervene where the Will fails to make reasonable financial provision for those who fall within the categories protected by the 1975 Act.
In this case, the Court held that Tony’s Will, combined with his substantial lifetime gifts and clear communications, did not fail that test.
Why this case matters for anyone making a Will
Excluding close family members is possible—but risky
The Shearer case confirms that it is legally possible to exclude adult children or other close relatives from your Will. However, doing so carries a real risk of a claim under the 1975 Act.
Even if such a claim ultimately fails, it can:
• Delay probate and estate administration.
• Increase legal costs significantly.
• Cause stress and conflict among surviving family members.
• Damage relationships that might otherwise have been preserved.
One of the most striking features of the Shearer case is the importance of contemporaneous written evidence. Tony’s letters and documents:
• Explained his financial support over many years.
• Set out his view that his daughters had already received “almost everything” they could expect.
• Confirmed that he did not intend to provide further financial assistance.
Lifetime gifts should be recorded properly
Substantial lifetime gifts can be highly relevant to any later claim. If you intend a gift to be:
• An advance on inheritance, or
• A final major contribution,
it is wise to record that intention clearly. Doing so can help demonstrate that you have already made reasonable provision and that further claims are not justified.
When considering a 1975 Act claim, the Court will look at the whole picture, including:
• The claimant’s financial needs and resources.
• Their earning capacity and prospects.
• Their lifestyle and choices.
• The support they receive from other family members.
In Shearer, the daughters’ circumstances and the support available from their mother reduced the strength of their claims.
Tony’s second marriage and mirror Wills with Pamela added complexity. Children from a first marriage often worry that a surviving step‑parent may change their Will later, leaving them with nothing.
In such situations, careful planning—using trusts and structured arrangements—can help balance:
• Provision for a surviving spouse, and
• Protection for children from a previous relationship.
At Matrix Estate Planning Ltd, we focus on preventing disputes before they arise. When a client is considering excluding a close family member, or making unequal provision, we take particular care to address the risks.
Comprehensive fact‑finding
We take time to understand:
• Your family structure and relationships.
• Any history of estrangement or conflict.
• Financial circumstances and potential vulnerabilities.
• Previous lifetime gifts and support.
Clear documentation of intentions
We help clients create:
• Detailed Letters of Wishes explaining their decisions.
• Written records of discussions about exclusions or unequal provision.
• Notes of lifetime gifts and their intended purpose.
Protective Will structures
Depending on your circumstances, we may recommend:
• Life interest trusts to provide for a spouse while protecting capital for children.
• Discretionary trusts to give trustees flexibility in meeting needs fairly.
• Property protection trusts to safeguard the family home.
Sensitive family communication
Where appropriate, we encourage clients to consider:
• Discussing their intentions with family members.
• Explaining the reasons for exclusions or unequal provision.
• Managing expectations to avoid shock and resentment after death.
Professional drafting and regular review
We ensure that:
• Your Will is drafted clearly and robustly.
• Your intentions are expressed in a way that aligns with the law.
• Your estate plan is reviewed as circumstances change—such as marriage, divorce, births, deaths, or changes in financial position.
If you are considering excluding a close family member—especially a child or someone who might claim to be dependent—you should:
1. Seek professional advice early.
Complex family situations are not suited to DIY Wills or generic templates.
2. Document your reasoning.
A Letter of Wishes can explain your decisions and provide valuable context.
3. Consider whether a trust might be more appropriate.
Sometimes limited or controlled provision through a trust can reduce the risk of a claim while still protecting your core wishes.
4. Review your Will regularly.
Changes in relationships, health, or finances can alter the risk profile and may justify updating your Will.
5. Avoid ambiguity.
Clear, precise drafting reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings and disputes.
Miles & Anor v Shearer is a clear reminder that:
• Adult children can and do bring claims under the 1975 Act.
• Courts will examine family history, financial support and written evidence in detail.
• Excluding someone from a Will is legally possible—but must be handled with care.
• Clear communication, documented intentions and professional drafting are vital to protecting your estate.
At Matrix Estate Planning Ltd, we help you make informed, confident decisions that respect your testamentary freedom while minimising the risk of costly, time‑consuming disputes at the probate stage.
If you are considering excluding a close family member from your Will—or simply want to ensure your estate passes smoothly and securely—now is the time to put a robust, well‑documented plan in place. would you like more information?
