David Marcus Isaacs v Michael Anthony Green & Ors

David Marcus Isaacs v Michael Anthony Green & Ors

The will failed to make reasonable financial provision for David Isaacs, given his age, health, lack of resources, and dependence on the estate for accommodation. A lump sum representing 25% of the residuary estate is reasonable to secure his maintenance, balancing the needs of all parties and the limited size of the estate.

Parties
Claimant: David Marcus Isaacs; First Defendant (personal Representative of the Estate): Michael Anthony Green; Second Defendant: Ruth Simone Isaacs; Third Defendant: Susan Amelia Ellis-Cohn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Family/probate Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; reasonable financial provision ordered for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Financial Provision Under Inheritance Act, Provision for Adult Child, Estate Administration, Costs in Inheritance Proceedings
Succession Law Family Law Reasonable Financial Provision Under Inheritance Act Provision for Adult Child Estate Administration Costs in Inheritance Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 22
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Marcus Isaacs

Claimant

Michael Anthony Green

First Defendant (personal Representative of the Estate)

Ruth Simone Isaacs

Second Defendant

Susan Amelia Ellis-Cohn

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family/probate Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of the deceased failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 What order should be made to provide reasonable financial provision for the claimant
  3. 3 How the needs and resources of all parties should be balanced given the limited estate

Ratio Decidendi

The will failed to make reasonable financial provision for David Isaacs, given his age, health, lack of resources, and dependence on the estate for accommodation. A lump sum representing 25% of the residuary estate is reasonable to secure his maintenance, balancing the needs of all parties and the limited size of the estate.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; reasonable financial provision ordered for the claimant.

Orders

  • David Isaacs to receive 25% of the residuary estate; Ruth and Susan to share the remaining 75% equally.
  • David and Ruth permitted to remain in the Property for six months or until purchase/rehousing, with occupation compensation to Susan at £1,125 per month each, deducted from their shares.