Will Disputes & Inheritance Claims UK: Grounds & Time Limits

At a glance

• Two different routes: a validity challenge argues the will itself is defective; an inheritance claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 accepts the will (or intestacy) but asks the court to adjust what you receive.
• The six-month deadline: an Inheritance Act claim must generally be issued within six months of the grant of probate or letters of administration being first taken out, under section 4 of the 1975 Act.
• Who can claim under the 1975 Act: spouses and civil partners, former spouses/civil partners who have not remarried, a two-year-plus cohabitant, children, people treated as a child of the family, and anyone the deceased was maintaining — the categories in section 1.
• Validity grounds: improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, and fraud or forgery.
• No fixed deadline for validity challenges, but delay counts against you once the estate has started to be distributed.
• Caveats: lodging one under rule 44 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 pauses a grant for six months while you investigate; the GOV.UK fee is currently £3, but always check the current figure.
• Proprietary estoppel is a separate route based on a broken promise relied on to your detriment — it does not depend on the will being invalid or on the six-month deadline.

What this document is

A will dispute is a legal challenge to the validity of a will, or to how an estate is being administered. An inheritance claim, by contrast, doesn't necessarily argue the will is wrong — it asks the court to adjust what someone receives from the estate because they were financially dependent on the deceased or were not left reasonable financial provision.

These two routes are often confused, but they rest on very different legal grounds, run to different deadlines, and require different evidence. This guide covers England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own, different rules on succession and inheritance claims.

Challenging the validity of a will

A will can be set aside, in whole or in part, if it fails on one of the recognised legal grounds. A court claim challenging validity is generally started using Form N2 — see our guide on contesting a will with Form N2 for the practical process.

Improper execution

Under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (as substituted by section 17 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982), a will is only valid if it is in writing, signed by the testator (or by someone else in their presence, at their direction), the testator intended the signature to give effect to the will, and the signature is made or acknowledged in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, each of whom then attests and signs the will (or acknowledges their own signature) in the testator's presence. Miss any of these formalities and the will can fail regardless of what it says.

Testamentary capacity

The testator must have had the mental capacity to make a will at the time they signed it. The test comes from the Victorian case of Banks v Goodfellow (1870) and still governs today in preference to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 test used for other decisions — the testator must understand the nature of the act of making a will and its effect, understand the extent of the property they are disposing of, be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims of people who might expect to benefit, and not be affected by any delusion of the mind that distorts those judgments. Capacity is assessed at the date of signing, so medical evidence and witness accounts from around that time matter enormously.

Want of knowledge and approval

Even where a will is properly signed and witnessed by a testator who had capacity, it can still fail if the testator did not actually know and approve of its contents at the time. The Court of Appeal's decision in Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430 confirms that suspicious circumstances — an unexplained departure from a testator's known wishes, or the involvement of a beneficiary in preparing the will — can shift the burden onto those seeking to uphold the will to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the testator really did understand and approve what they signed.

Undue influence

A will can be challenged if the testator's free will was overpowered by coercion, so the document reflects someone else's wishes rather than their own. Unlike lifetime gifts, there is no presumption of undue influence in the will context — the person alleging it must prove it, and the courts (following Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch) and Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch)) require evidence that is inconsistent with any explanation other than coercion. This makes undue influence one of the hardest grounds to succeed on, even where family suspicion runs high.

Fraud and forgery

Less common but decisive where proved: a will procured by deliberate deception, or a signature or document that is not genuine, is not a valid will at all.

Making an inheritance claim under the 1975 Act

A different route exists where the will (or the intestacy rules) is not defective, but leaves someone without reasonable financial provision.

Who can apply

Section 1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows the following people to apply for an order against the estate: the spouse or civil partner of the deceased; a former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried or formed a new civil partnership; a person who, for the whole of the two years immediately before the death, lived in the same household as the deceased as if they were a married couple or civil partners (the cohabitant category, added by the Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014 and its 1995 predecessor); a child of the deceased; any person treated by the deceased as a child of the family; and any person who, immediately before the death, was being maintained wholly or partly by the deceased — meaning the deceased was making a substantial contribution in money or money's worth to that person's reasonable needs, other than under a commercial arrangement.

What the claim asks for

The claim asks the court to order "reasonable financial provision" from the estate. For a surviving spouse or civil partner, that can mean whatever provision is reasonable in the circumstances, whether or not it is needed for maintenance. For every other category of applicant, the test is narrower — reasonable provision for their maintenance. In deciding what, if anything, to award, the court weighs the factors in section 3 of the Act, including the applicant's financial resources and needs, any obligations the deceased owed them, the size of the estate, and any physical or mental disability.

The six-month time limit

This is the single most important practical fact in this whole area: under section 4 of the 1975 Act, a claim must be issued at court within six months of the date on which representation (the grant of probate or letters of administration) is first taken out, except with the court's permission. The court can allow a late claim in genuinely exceptional circumstances, but this is discretionary, uncertain, and never something to plan around. If you are considering a claim, find out the date of the grant as a priority — you can search for it using the probate records service on GOV.UK, and our guide on how the Probate Registry works explains what the grant date actually means in practice — and treat the six-month clock as running from that date.

Caveats: pausing a grant while you investigate

If probate has not yet been granted and you have genuine concerns about a will's validity or about who is entitled to administer the estate, you can lodge a caveat at the Probate Registry. Under rule 44 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, an effective caveat prevents a grant being sealed while it remains in force. A caveat lasts six months from entry and can be extended for further six-month periods if you apply before it expires.

GOV.UK's current guidance on applying to stop a probate application puts the fee at £3 — always check the current figure before applying, since court fees change. If the person applying for the grant disagrees with your caveat, they can issue a "warning," which typically gives you eight days to enter an appearance setting out your interest and grounds, or the caveat lapses. A caveat is a serious step, not a delaying tactic: entering or maintaining one without a genuine basis can expose you to a costs order.

Proprietary estoppel: when a broken promise is the real issue

Sometimes the dispute isn't really about the will's validity or about the 1975 Act categories at all — it's about a promise. Proprietary estoppel is a long-standing equitable principle that can apply where the deceased made a clear assurance, often that someone would inherit a specific property or business, and that person relied on the promise to their detriment — for example, working for years on a family farm for little or no pay on the strength of an understanding that it would one day be theirs.

The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27 clarified how courts approach the remedy: the starting assumption is that the simplest way to remedy the unfairness is to hold the promisor to their promise, but the court can scale this back — including to a proportionate financial award — where fulfilling the promise in full would be out of proportion to the detriment suffered. Proprietary estoppel claims do not depend on showing the will is invalid, and they are not subject to the 1975 Act's six-month deadline, though unreasonable delay can still count against a claimant. The Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills Law report also discusses how testamentary promises interact with the law of wills, reflecting how live an issue this remains.

What happens if there is no will

Where someone dies without a valid will, the estate passes under the statutory intestacy rules rather than to whoever the deceased might have intended. GOV.UK's guide on inheritance and the rules of intestacy sets out the order of priority, which broadly favours a surviving spouse or civil partner first, then children, then other blood relatives. Unmarried partners and stepchildren who were never legally adopted receive nothing automatically, however long the relationship or however close the bond — which is exactly the gap the cohabitant and "child of the family" categories in the 1975 Act, and proprietary estoppel, exist to address.

Costs and settlement

Will disputes and inheritance claims are expensive, stressful, and often damaging to family relationships. Court fees for issuing a claim are separate from solicitors' fees and are published on GOV.UK; always check current figures rather than relying on an old quote. Mediation and without-prejudice negotiation resolve a large proportion of these disputes without a contested hearing, and the courts expect parties to have genuinely tried to settle — unreasonably refusing to engage in alternative dispute resolution can affect the costs order made at the end, even for the side that ultimately wins. Weigh the realistic value of a claim against the likely cost of pursuing it before committing to litigation.

Worked example: Priya's position

Priya's father died on 10 January 2026. He left a will made several years earlier that left everything to his second wife, making no provision for Priya, who is his only child from his first marriage. Probate is granted on 1 April 2026. Priya is not challenging the will's validity — she accepts it was properly signed and witnessed, and she has no evidence of capacity issues or undue influence. Instead, she wants to bring an Inheritance Act claim on the basis that she received no reasonable financial provision.

Because Priya is a child of the deceased, she falls within section 1(1)(c) of the 1975 Act and can apply. Her six-month deadline under section 4 runs from 1 April 2026 — the date the grant was taken out — not from her father's date of death, and not from the date she found out about the will. She therefore needs to issue her claim by 1 October 2026 unless she can persuade the court to allow a late application, which is never guaranteed. Acting early, gathering evidence of her financial circumstances, and taking advice well before that date protects her position.

What to do if you think you have a claim: step by step

1. Gather the paperwork and the facts. Get a copy of the will, any earlier versions, the death certificate, and correspondence that sheds light on the deceased's intentions or state of mind. If probate has been granted, you can obtain a copy of the will and the grant from the Probate Registry — see search probate records and wills. If you are also an executor working out how the application itself was made, our guide on the PA1P probate application explains the form used where there is a will. Write a clear timeline while memories are fresh.
2. Work out which route fits your situation. Are you questioning the will's validity (capacity, undue influence, improper execution, knowledge and approval, fraud), bringing an Inheritance Act claim for reasonable financial provision, or raising a proprietary estoppel claim based on a broken promise? Each has different evidence requirements, different deadlines, and different likely outcomes.
3. Find out the date of the grant immediately. If you may have a 1975 Act claim, the six-month deadline under section 4 runs from that date, not from the death or from when you found out. Do not assume you have longer than you do.
4. Consider a caveat if no grant has been issued yet. Where you have genuine concerns about validity and want time to investigate before assets are distributed, lodging a caveat under rule 44 pauses matters for six months. Do not use one without proper grounds.
5. Explore settlement before issuing proceedings. Mediation and direct negotiation resolve many of these disputes. Courts expect a genuine attempt at settlement, and refusing one unreasonably can affect costs later.
6. Take advice early. These claims turn on strict deadlines and fact-specific evidence — speaking to a legal adviser as soon as you think you may have grounds gives you the best chance of protecting your position.

Common mistakes that weaken a claim

• Missing the six-month deadline because it was measured from the date of death rather than the date of the grant.
• Assuming a family disagreement equals undue influence. The evidential bar is high, and suspicion alone rarely succeeds.
• Waiting too long to raise a validity concern, allowing the estate to be distributed before a caveat or challenge is in place.
• Treating a caveat as a free delaying tactic — costs can follow if it is entered or kept in place without genuine grounds.
• Overlooking a proprietary estoppel angle because the dispute doesn't fit neatly into the 1975 Act categories or a validity challenge.

This guide provides general information about will disputes and inheritance claims in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice tailored to your specific circumstances. The law described was accurate as at July 2026 and is subject to change — always check GOV.UK and legislation.gov.uk for the most current position.

Last reviewed: July 2026 by a non-practising solicitor · Next review due: July 2027 or on legislative change.