In the recent case of Howe v Howe [2025], the High Court made headlines by awarding a substantial sum to an adult daughter who had been deliberately and explicitly excluded from her father’s Will. The judgment has sparked renewed debate about whether testamentary freedom is being eroded in English law. “Testamentary freedom” is the key principle that a person can leave their assets to whomever they wish.
The facts
Roger Howe, a former radio engineer, died in 2020, leaving an estate worth around £1.4 million. His Will made it clear that his only child, Jenna Howe, was to receive nothing. He described her in harsh terms, calling her “lazy,” “useless,” “greedy,” and “druggy”, among other things. Instead, he left his estate to his mother, sister, and nephews.
Jenna initially challenged the Will’s validity, but after this initial claim was dismissed, she later brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, arguing that her father’s decision left her without reasonable financial provision.
The judgment
The court found in Jenna’s favour. Despite the estrangement and her father’s clear wishes, the Judge found that Jenna had genuine financial needs arising from emotional abuse and neglect by her late father during her upbringing, which in turn led to mental illness, addiction, and an inability to work. She was awarded £125,000 to be held in a discretionary trust to protect her benefits and ensure responsible use.
The award covered:
- Therapy and medical needs
- Household essentials
- A modest car
- Income support for ten years
What Does This Mean for You?
If you’re considering excluding a child from your Will, this case is a cautionary tale. While English law does uphold testamentary freedom, it also allows Courts to intervene if someone who was financially dependent on the deceased is left without reasonable provision.
Here are some key takeaways:
- Estrangement isn’t always enough. Even if you’ve had no contact for years, the court may still award provision if the child has genuine needs.
- Poor behaviour by the person who has been disinherited may reduce an award, but it won’t necessarily bar a claim.
- Clarity helps, but isn’t bulletproof. A well-drafted Will and a letter of wishes explaining your decision don’t guarantee immunity from claims.
It is also worth mentioning that the aforementioned insults directed at Jenna were included within the Will itself as well as other documents intended to support the Will. Far from safeguarding the deceased’s wishes, this may have helped to convince the Judge that the disinheritance was unreasonable and played a key role in the court finding in Jenna’s favour.
Whilst it is unclear whether the Will and supporting documents were prepared with specialist legal assistance, this case does illustrate that it is far better for a testator to record their reasons for excluding someone in a calm and factual manner and to avoid inflammatory or insulting language.
Is testamentary freedom being eroded?
This recent judgment has given rise to renewed concern among practitioners and legal commentators that the courts are increasingly willing to override a testator’s wishes. Cases like Ilott v Mitson [2017] and now Howe v Howe show that whilst the principle of testamentary freedom still stands, it is balanced against fairness and moral responsibility.
Get In Touch
Paul Baker is a Solicitor in our Wills and Probate Team. Paul advises on matters relating to wills, trusts and estates and undertakes probate and estate administration work. He also advises clients on setting up Lasting Powers of Attorney.
If you’d like to talk to Paul or another member of our team about Wills and Probate services, please call 0330 111 3131 or fill out our online contact form.
