No: FD22F00062 - [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)

Sybil Rachael Issacs (“the Deceased”) died on 22 April 2013. She left a will dated 20 November 2006 which left her residuary estate to her two adult daughters Ruth Simone Isaacs (“Ruth”) and Susan Amelia Ellis-Cohn (“Susan”). Her will made no provision for her adult son, David Marcus Isaacs(“David”). David has therefore brought this claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Act”) seeking reasonable financial provision from his late mother’s estate.

The First Defendant to this claim is Mr Michael Anthony Green (“Mr Green”), a solicitor in the firm of Howes Percival LLP. He is the independent administrator of the Deceased’s estate having been appointed as such by an order of Master Pester made on 21 March 2021. Ruth is the Second Defendant to the claim and Susan is the Third Defendant.

Although David was initially represented by solicitors, by the time of the trial before me he was acting in person. Mr Green, as the administrator of the Deceased’s estate did not play any active role in the trial. He attended on the first day to give evidence, and to be cross-examined about the estate. However, he was not represented and, with my permission, did not participate any further in the trial. Ruth, who supports David’s claim, asked questions of a number of witnesses and made short submissions. Susan is the only party who actively opposes David’s claim. She lives in California in the United States of America and, as I explain in greater detail below, she suffers from a number of serious and complex health conditions. She gave evidence and was cross-examined by video-link on the first day of the trial, but (with my permission) did not attend for the remainder of the trial. She was however represented throughout the trial by her counsel, Mr James Poole.

I am grateful to all parties for their submissions and recognise that David and Ruth as litigants in person are not familiar with court processes and have at times found participation in the trial not straightforward. I should also record my gratitude to Mr Poole for his submissions on the law which, mindful of his responsibilities as the only member of the Bar instructed in this matter, provided a clear and helpful explanation of the principles applicable to claims under the Act.