Going to Court in a Will Dispute: Grounds, Process & Costs (2026)

At a glance

• Two different routes. Challenging a will's validity (lack of capacity, undue influence, improper execution, fraud) is legally different from an Inheritance Act 1975 claim, which accepts the will is valid but argues it doesn't provide reasonably for you. They have different courts, different procedures, and different time limits.
• Caveats cost £3, stop a grant of probate being sealed, last six months, and can be extended for a further six months if you apply within the last month before expiry (Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, r.44).
• Inheritance Act 1975 claims must generally be brought within six months of the grant of representation — the court can allow a late claim, but shouldn't be relied on to.
• Rectification claims (fixing a clerical error or a misunderstood instruction) carry the same six-month limit, under the Administration of Justice Act 1982.
• Validity challenges are "probate claims" under CPR Part 57: they go to the High Court's Chancery Division or a Chancery-authorised County Court hearing centre, and are always allocated to the multi-track.
• Mediation is expected. GOV.UK's own guidance lists wills and probate disputes as well suited to mediation, and a court can pause a claim to let you try it.
• Costs generally follow the outcome — the losing side usually pays a significant share of the winner's costs — so the financial risk applies whichever side you're on.

What counts as a "will dispute"?

A will dispute is a contested probate matter where someone asks the court either to say a will shouldn't stand (or should be read differently), or to order that reasonable financial provision be made for them despite what the will says. These claims are governed by a mix of case law, the Wills Act 1837, the Administration of Justice Act 1982, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and the Civil Procedure Rules.

Broadly, disputes fall into two categories that are easy to confuse but legally distinct:

• Validity challenges attack the will itself — arguing it was never properly made, or that the person who signed it wasn't in a position to do so freely and knowingly.
• Financial provision claims under the Inheritance Act 1975 accept the will (or the intestacy rules) is valid, but argue it doesn't make reasonable provision for someone who was entitled to expect it.

A third, narrower route — rectification — asks the court to correct a will that fails to reflect what the testator actually intended, because of a clerical error or a failure to understand their instructions.

Knowing which category applies to your situation is the first step, because it determines the time limit you're working to, the court you'd use, and the evidence you need. Our guide to the main types of will dispute covers this ground in more depth.

The grounds for challenging a will's validity

To succeed in a validity challenge, you need to establish one of a small number of recognised grounds. Courts take these seriously because a formally valid will carries a strong presumption in its favour, particularly if it was professionally drawn up.

1. Lack of testamentary capacity

The test comes from the 1870 case of Banks v Goodfellow and still applies today rather than the general capacity test in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 — courts have confirmed this as recently as 2024. To have testamentary capacity, the person making the will must, at the time they made it, have understood: the nature of making a will and its effect; the extent of the property they were disposing of; and the people who might reasonably expect to benefit from their estate. They must also not be suffering from any delusion of the mind that distorts their sense of right or influences the will's provisions. All elements of the test must be met — if any one is missing, capacity isn't made out. Our guide on challenging a will on grounds of mental capacity goes into this in more detail.

2. Want of knowledge and approval

Even if someone had capacity, a will can still fail if they didn't actually know and approve its contents at the time they signed it. The modern approach treats this as one question: did the testator understand what was in the will, and what its effect would be? Where a will was properly executed after being professionally prepared and read over to the testator, the courts start from a strong presumption that it reflects their wishes. But if the circumstances surrounding the will are genuinely suspicious — for example, a beneficiary was heavily involved in preparing it — that presumption can be displaced, and it falls to whoever supports the will to satisfy the court the testator really did know and approve its terms.

3. Undue influence

This is different from the undue influence that can apply to lifetime gifts. For a will, there is no automatic presumption of undue influence, however close or dependent the relationship — the person alleging it carries the burden of proving it, and the courts have said the facts must be inconsistent with any explanation other than undue influence, not merely consistent with it. It's a high bar, but not an impossible one: cases have succeeded where a vulnerable, dependent testator was shown to have been dominated by someone closely involved in preparing the will who then concealed what they'd done. A related doctrine, sometimes called "fraudulent calumny," covers cases where someone poisoned the testator's mind against a particular beneficiary using false statements the testator believed to be true.

4. Want of due execution

A will is only valid if it meets the formal requirements in section 9 of the Wills Act 1837: it must be in writing and signed by the testator (or by someone else in their presence and at their direction); it must appear the testator intended the signature to give effect to the will; the signature must be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and each witness must then either attest and sign the will, or acknowledge their own signature, in the testator's presence. Temporary rules allowed witnessing by video link for wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2024, but that provision has now expired — outside that window, physical presence is required. A will that appears regular on its face is presumed to have been properly executed, but that presumption can be challenged with evidence.

5. Fraud and forgery

Forgery means the will, or a signature on it, isn't genuine. Fraud covers cases where the testator was deliberately deceived about what they were signing, or about facts relevant to their decisions, or was the victim of fraudulent calumny as described above. These are serious allegations with a correspondingly high evidential bar, and the courts expect them to be properly particularised rather than asserted speculatively — see our guide on contesting a will on grounds of fraud for what that involves in practice.

Claims that don't attack the will: the Inheritance Act 1975

A financial provision claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 doesn't say the will is invalid — it says that whatever the will (or the intestacy rules) provides, it isn't reasonable financial provision for the applicant.

Who can apply. Section 1 sets out a defined list: a spouse or civil partner of the deceased; a former spouse or civil partner who hasn't remarried or formed a new civil partnership; a person who lived with the deceased as a couple for the whole of the two years immediately before their death; a child of the deceased; a person treated by the deceased as a child of the family; and a person who was being wholly or partly maintained by the deceased immediately before death.

What "reasonable financial provision" means. The standard differs depending on who's applying. For a spouse or civil partner (who wasn't judicially separated from the deceased at the time of death), the court can award whatever provision is reasonable in all the circumstances — it doesn't have to be limited to what they need to live on. For every other category of applicant, the court can only award what is reasonably needed for their maintenance.

Time limit. An application must be made within six months of the date representation is first taken out, unless the court permits it to be made later. Applications can also be made before representation is granted. This is a strict-sounding rule and courts don't extend it lightly, so it should be treated as a hard deadline rather than a starting point for negotiation.

Remedies. If a claim succeeds, section 2 gives the court a wide range of powers — it can order periodical payments, a lump sum, the transfer or settlement of specific property for the applicant's benefit, the acquisition of property to transfer or settle, or the variation of a marriage or civil partnership settlement, or of the trusts on which the estate is held.

Protecting your position before you issue a claim

Entering a caveat

If probate hasn't yet been granted and you're concerned about the will's validity, entering a caveat is usually the first practical step. It's a formal notice lodged at the Probate Registry that stops a grant being sealed while it's in force, currently costing £3 (check GOV.UK for the current fee). A caveat lasts six months from the date it's entered, and you can apply to extend it for a further six months, provided you apply within the last month of the current period.

A caveat isn't a claim, and it doesn't resolve anything by itself. Once it's entered, the person applying for probate can serve a formal "warning" on you, requiring you to state what interest you have in the estate. If you have no contrary interest but still want to investigate, you can respond by applying for directions from the court instead of simply doing nothing; if you don't respond appropriately, the caveat can lapse and the grant can then proceed. Entering a caveat can prompt the other side to engage or to start proceedings against you, so it's worth thinking through what you'll do next before you enter one — see our guide on contesting a will for the wider picture.

Requesting the will file: a Larke v Nugus request

Before committing to a claim, it's standard practice to ask the solicitor or will-writer who prepared the will for their file — their attendance notes, instructions, any record of assessing the testator's capacity, and details of how the will was executed. This is known as a Larke v Nugus request, after the 1979 Court of Appeal case that recognised the practice. There's no strict legal obligation on the solicitor to respond, but professional guidance encourages it, on the basis that it helps everyone avoid unnecessary litigation. The response often makes clear whether there's a real case to answer before either side spends significant money finding out the hard way.

Trying to resolve things without a trial

The courts actively expect parties to try to resolve will disputes without a full trial. GOV.UK's guidance on civil mediation specifically lists wills and probate disputes, and trust disputes, as the kind of dispute mediation is well suited to. Mediation is confidential, can happen at any stage — before proceedings start or after — and, if you reach agreement, the outcome is recorded in a legally binding settlement agreement. If proceedings are already underway, the court can pause the case to allow mediation to take place. Because a large share of contested probate matters settle rather than go to trial, treating mediation as a serious option early on, rather than a box-ticking exercise, is usually the more efficient path. Our guide to arbitration in will disputes covers a related alternative to a full court trial.

Which court, and which time limit?

| Type of claim | Time limit | Court and procedure | |---|---|---| | Validity challenge (capacity, knowledge & approval, undue influence, due execution, fraud) | No fixed statutory deadline, but act promptly — use a caveat to protect your position | High Court, Chancery Division, or a County Court hearing centre with a Chancery district registry; Part 7 procedure under CPR Part 57; always multi-track | | Inheritance Act 1975 claim (reasonable financial provision) | Six months from the grant of representation (court permission needed after) | Usually the County Court; can be the Chancery or Family Division of the High Court for complex or high-value claims; Part 8 procedure | | Rectification (clerical error or misunderstood instructions) | Six months from the grant of representation (court permission needed after) | Similar to a validity claim under CPR Part 57 |

Going to court: the process under CPR Part 57

If a validity dispute can't be resolved, the formal claim — a "probate claim" — is governed by Section I of Part 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Some features of this process are unusual compared with ordinary civil litigation, and worth knowing before you start:

• Where it's issued. In the High Court, probate claims are assigned to the Chancery Division. In the County Court, they can only be issued at a hearing centre with a Chancery district registry, or at the County Court at Central London. Every probate claim is allocated to the multi-track — there's no fast-track or small-claims route, whatever the value of the estate.
• What the claim form must say. It must state the claimant's and each defendant's interest in the estate. Anyone alleging want of knowledge and approval must give particulars of the facts relied on. Anyone contending a will wasn't duly executed, that the testator lacked capacity, or that execution was obtained by undue influence or fraud must set out that contention specifically, with particulars — vague assertions aren't enough.
• The "solemn form" defence. A defendant can give notice that they aren't raising a positive case of their own, but simply insist the will be "proved in solemn form" — requiring the claimant to call and cross-examine the witnesses who attested it. If they take this passive route, the court generally won't order costs against them unless there was no reasonable ground for opposing the will in the first place.
• No default judgment. Unlike most civil claims, you cannot obtain default judgment in a probate claim just because a defendant fails to respond — the normal default judgment rules don't apply, and the claimant instead has to apply to the court for directions.
• Testamentary documents must be lodged. Anyone with a testamentary document — the will itself, or an earlier one — generally has to lodge it with the court and disclose what they know about any other testamentary documents, whoever holds them.

An Inheritance Act 1975 claim is procedurally simpler: it's issued using Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (a shorter procedure intended for claims unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact) and can usually be brought in the County Court, which has unlimited jurisdiction for these claims, though it can be transferred to a specialist Business and Property Court centre if it's complex.

Costs: what going to court can cost you

Court fees are the smallest part of the cost of a will dispute. As of this guide, the probate application fee is £300 for estates worth over £5,000 (no fee applies below that), and a caveat costs £3 — but GOV.UK's civil and family court fees were scheduled for an update from 13 July 2026, so always check GOV.UK for the fee that applies when you act, rather than relying on figures quoted here or elsewhere.

Legal and expert costs dwarf court fees in most disputes. A straightforward case that settles early may cost relatively little; a full multi-track trial, particularly one involving expert medical evidence on capacity, can run to tens of thousands of pounds or more on each side. The general rule in civil litigation is that the losing party pays a significant proportion of the winning party's costs, so the financial exposure applies whichever side of the dispute you're on — including if you bring a claim that fails.

A defendant who takes the passive "solemn form" route under CPR 57.7(5) is specifically protected from a costs order unless the court finds there was no reasonable ground to oppose the will, which is a useful safeguard for executors and beneficiaries who don't want to actively litigate but do want the will properly proved. Beyond that, tools like formal settlement offers can be used by either side to put pressure on the other to settle and to manage costs risk as a claim progresses.

What happens if you win, or lose

If a validity challenge succeeds, the will is treated as never having taken effect. The estate is then distributed under an earlier valid will, if one exists, or — if there isn't one — under the intestacy rules, which follow a fixed order of entitlement based on family relationships rather than what anyone actually wanted. This means winning a validity challenge doesn't guarantee the outcome the claimant was hoping for.

If an Inheritance Act 1975 claim succeeds, the will (or the intestacy distribution) stands, but the court redistributes part of the estate to the applicant using its powers under section 2 — a lump sum, ongoing payments, or the transfer or settlement of specific property, for example. The rest of the estate is distributed as the will (or intestacy) originally provided.

If a claim fails, the original will or intestacy distribution stands unchanged, and the unsuccessful party is likely to face a costs order in addition to their own legal costs.

Practical next steps

1. Work out what you're actually challenging. Decide whether you're attacking the will's validity, asking for it to be interpreted or rectified, or claiming reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975. These are legally distinct routes with different evidence requirements and different time limits, and confusing them wastes time and money early on.
2. Preserve evidence while it's available. Medical records, GP notes, care home logs, witness accounts, earlier wills, solicitor files, and correspondence showing what the testator was thinking can all matter. Memories fade and documents get destroyed, so early preservation often decides a case years later.
3. Protect your position with a caveat if probate hasn't been granted. It buys time to investigate without committing you to a full claim.
4. Send a Larke v Nugus request if you're questioning a professionally prepared will, before deciding whether to go further.
5. Check your time limit. If an Inheritance Act 1975 claim or a rectification claim might apply, don't let the six-month clock run out while you're still deciding.
6. Try to resolve the dispute without trial. Mediation is well suited to will and probate disputes, and courts expect it to have been considered.
7. Take advice early if you're weighing up whether to issue proceedings. The choice of route, court, and timing shapes the outcome more than anything that happens later at trial.

This guide provides general information about how will disputes reach court 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.