Farra is a death administration assistant for UK families. Get step-by-step guidance for registering a death, applying for probate, notifying banks, and managing bereavement admin. From essential documents to practical checklists, Farra simplifies estate paperwork and funeral-related tasks so you can focus on what matters.
In England and Wales there are two ways to contest a will. A validity challenge argues that the will should not stand. The recognised grounds are lack of capacity, lack of knowledge and approval, undue influence, forgery or fraud, faulty signing or witnessing, and revocation. If it succeeds, an earlier will or the intestacy rules apply instead. An Inheritance Act 1975 claim accepts the will but asks the court to order reasonable financial provision for a spouse, civil partner, former spouse, cohabitant, child, someone treated as a child of the family, or someone the person was maintaining. That claim has a six-month deadline from the grant. A validity challenge has no fixed statutory deadline. Both are court proceedings. The losing side is ordinarily ordered to pay the winner's costs, with two recognised exceptions for probate claims.
Most people who look up "contesting a will" are asking one question: can anything be done about this will? English law gives two quite different answers, and it helps to know which one applies before anything else. One route says the will is not valid and should not stand. The other accepts that the will is valid but asks the court to change how the estate is shared, because it does not make reasonable financial provision for someone the law protects.
This guide explains both routes. It covers the legal grounds, who can bring each kind of claim, the time limits, caveats, how a claim moves through the courts and how the courts deal with costs. Where no official source publishes a figure, such as what a claim costs, how long one takes or how often they succeed, the page says so rather than guessing.
This describes the law of England and Wales. The Inheritance Act 1975 applies only where the person who died was domiciled in England and Wales. In Scotland, a spouse, civil partner and children have "legal rights" to a fixed share of the moveable estate (such as money, shares, cars and furniture, but not land and buildings). See our guide to intestacy rules in Scotland. Northern Ireland has its own probate system and its own equivalent of the 1975 Act, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. See intestacy in Northern Ireland.
| Challenging the will's validity | Inheritance Act 1975 claim | |
|---|---|---|
| What it says | The will is not a valid will | The will is valid, but it does not make reasonable financial provision for the claimant |
| If it succeeds | The will falls away. An earlier valid will, or the intestacy rules, apply instead | The will stands, but the court orders provision from the estate |
| Who can bring it | Someone with an interest in the estate, usually someone who would get more if the will fell | Only the categories listed in section 1(1) of the 1975 Act |
| Time limit | None set by statute. Delay can still count against the claim | Six months from the grant, unless the court gives permission. It can be made before a grant |
| Court procedure | A "probate claim" under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 57, Section I | A claim under CPR Part 57, Section IV |
Both kinds of claim can be brought about the same estate. What someone stands to gain from each can be very different. That depends on what an earlier will says, or on who inherits under the intestacy rules. What happens if a will challenge succeeds explains why.
The law starts from the position that a will that looks properly made is valid. To overturn it, the person challenging it has to establish one of a recognised set of grounds. CPR 57.7 requires anyone who says a will was not properly executed, that the person lacked capacity, that it was obtained by undue influence or fraud, or that the person did not know and approve its contents, to set that out expressly, with particulars of the facts relied on.
"Testamentary capacity" means the mental ability needed to make a valid will. The test comes from the 1870 case Banks v Goodfellow, which the Court of Appeal restated in Hughes v Pritchard [2022] EWCA Civ 386. The person making the will (the "testator") must:
Capacity is judged at the time the will was made. A diagnosis such as dementia does not by itself mean capacity was lacking. The question is whether the person met the test when they signed.
Where the burden of proof lies moves during the case. In Hughes v Pritchard the Court of Appeal summarised it this way. The person relying on the will has to prove capacity. But if the will was properly signed and witnessed and looks rational, the court presumes capacity. The person challenging it then has to raise a real doubt, and if they do, the burden moves back. The same judgment said that the view of an experienced, independent solicitor who took the instructions and met the testator is "likely to be of considerable importance". It also said that the "golden rule", having an elderly or seriously ill person's will witnessed by a doctor, is "a rule of solicitors' good practice, not a rule of law".
More detail: lack of testamentary capacity.
Someone can have full capacity and still not know and approve what a particular will says. For example, it may not have been read to them or explained to them. In Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430 the Court of Appeal said a will properly executed after being prepared by a solicitor and read over to the testator "raises a very strong presumption" that it represents their intentions. Where there are circumstances that "excite the suspicion of the court", such as a will prepared by someone who benefits from it, those relying on the will must prove that the testator knew and approved its contents. The court looks at all the evidence together rather than in separate stages.
In a will, undue influence means coercion: pressure that overpowers the testator's own wishes. In Rea v Rea [2024] EWCA Civ 169 the Court of Appeal repeated the long-standing statement that it "raises the question of coercion, and that only". Persuasion, appeals to affection or family ties, and gratitude are all legitimate. As the court put it, a testator "may be led but not driven". The person alleging undue influence must prove it, and the circumstances must make undue influence "more probable than any other hypothesis". This is a hard thing to prove, partly because it usually happens in private.
More detail: undue influence claims.
Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 says a will is valid only if:
For wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2024, "presence" included presence by video link. That temporary rule has now ended.
A witness who benefits from the will does not make the will invalid. Section 15 of the Wills Act 1837 makes the gift to that witness, or to their spouse or civil partner, void. The rest of the will stands. See what happens if a beneficiary witnessed the will and the rules on witnessing a will.
A forged will, where the signature is not the testator's, is not their will at all. A will obtained by fraud, where the testator was deceived, can also be set aside. These are serious allegations. CPR 57.7 requires fraud to be pleaded expressly with particulars. More detail: fraud and forgery in wills.
A will that was valid when made may have been revoked before the death, so it is not the last will. Under the Wills Act 1837 a will is revoked:
Divorce does not revoke a will. Under section 18A, gifts to the former spouse and their appointment as executor take effect as if they had died on the date of the divorce, unless the will shows a different intention.
A will being unfair, leaving someone less than they expected, or leaving someone out is not a reason to find it invalid. A person may leave their estate as they choose. Where the real complaint is that the will does not provide for someone, the Inheritance Act 1975, below, is the route that deals with it.
Rectification is not a challenge to validity. It corrects a will so that it does what the testator meant. Under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, the court can rectify a will if it fails to carry out the testator's intentions because of:
An application cannot be made more than six months after the date on which representation is first taken out, unless the court gives permission. Under CPR 57.12, every personal representative must be a party to the claim.
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 applies where someone died domiciled in England and Wales. It lets certain people ask the court for "reasonable financial provision" from the estate. This applies whether the estate passes under a will, under the intestacy rules or a mix of both.
Who can apply (section 1(1)). These are alternatives. A claimant only needs to fit one:
The standard. For a spouse or civil partner, reasonable financial provision means what is reasonable in all the circumstances, whether or not it is needed for their maintenance. For everyone else it means what is reasonable for their maintenance (section 1(2)). In Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 the Supreme Court said maintenance "must import provision to meet the everyday expenses of living". It also said the Act gives no automatic provision: the will or intestacy rules apply unless the court is persuaded otherwise.
What the court weighs (section 3). The court considers the financial resources and needs of the claimant, any other claimants and the beneficiaries. It also considers any obligations the person who died had towards them, the size and nature of the estate, any disability, and any other relevant matter, including anyone's conduct.
What the court can order (section 2). Orders include periodical payments, a lump sum, a transfer or settlement of property, and varying the trusts on which the estate is held.
More detail: Inheritance Act 1975 claims, claims by unmarried partners, claims by adult children and claims by dependants.
| Claim | Time limit | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Inheritance Act 1975 claim | Six months from the date representation is first taken out. A claim can also be made before a grant. A later claim needs the court's permission | Section 4, 1975 Act |
| Rectification | Six months from the date representation is first taken out, unless the court gives permission | Section 20(2), Administration of Justice Act 1982 |
| Challenge to validity | No period is set by the Limitation Act 1980 | The 12 years often quoted is section 22, which covers claims to a share of an estate, not a challenge to the will |
The six months for an Inheritance Act claim runs from the grant, not from the death. Section 20 of the 1975 Act protects personal representatives who distribute the estate after those six months have passed, against the possibility that the court later allows a late claim. A validity challenge has no fixed deadline, but that does not make delay safe. Evidence and memories fade, the estate may be distributed, and delay can count against a claim. More detail: time limits for contesting a will.
A caveat is a notice entered at the Probate Registry that stops a grant of probate or letters of administration being issued. It is how people usually hold things while the validity of a will is looked into.
GOV.UK itself warns: "Entering a caveat can lead to legal action and legal costs. You should try to come to an agreement with the person applying for probate first."
A caveat does not protect an Inheritance Act claim. Because the six months run from the grant, a caveat only delays the start of that period. To find out when a grant is issued, a standing search can be used instead. Step by step: how to enter a caveat.
If a solicitor or will-writer prepared the will, their file often holds the most important evidence. That includes who gave the instructions, what was said, whether capacity was considered and how the will was signed. People considering a challenge commonly write to the firm asking for a copy of its will file and an account of how the will came about. This is known as a Larke v Nugus request, after the case of that name, and requests of this kind appear in reported judgments. Other evidence usually comes from GP and hospital records around the date the will was made, earlier wills, and people who saw the testator around that time.
No official timetable is published for this kind of claim, and none is given here.
Before a claim is issued. No specific pre-action protocol has been approved for probate or inheritance claims, so the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct applies. It expects the claimant to write setting out the claim and the defendant to reply within a reasonable time. That is 14 days in a straightforward case and no more than three months in a very complex one. The parties are expected to exchange key documents and consider settling, including through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as mediation.
ADR and mediation. Under CPR 1.4(2)(e) the court's case management includes "ordering or encouraging the parties to use, and facilitating the use of, alternative dispute resolution". CPR 3.1(2)(o) gives the court an express power to order the parties to engage in it. When deciding costs, the court can take into account a party failing to comply with an ADR order or unreasonably failing to engage in ADR (CPR 44.2(5)(e)). See mediation in estate disputes.
A probate claim (validity). Under CPR Part 57:
An Inheritance Act claim uses the Part 8 procedure. In the High Court it is issued in either the Chancery Division or the Family Division. The claimant's written evidence must exhibit an official copy of the grant and of every will or codicil it was granted on (CPR 57.16(3)).
Court fees are set by the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 and depend on the court and the type of claim. They change from time to time, so none is quoted here.
No official body publishes the cost of contesting a will, or how often claims succeed or settle. Figures of that kind circulate widely, but none has an official source. What the rules and the courts do establish is how costs are decided.
More detail: costs in contentious probate.
If a will is found invalid, it has no effect. The estate passes under the last earlier valid will or, if there is none, under the intestacy rules, and any grant made under the invalid will can be revoked. A successful Inheritance Act claim is different. The will stands, and the court's order changes how the estate is shared. Section 19 of the 1975 Act treats the order as having effect from the date of death. For what this means in practice, including assets already paid out, see what happens if a will challenge succeeds.
Not every estate dispute is about the will itself. Disagreements about how an executor is running the estate have their own routes:
In England and Wales a will can be challenged as invalid on these grounds: the person lacked testamentary capacity when they made it (the test from Banks v Goodfellow, restated by the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pritchard [2022]); they did not know and approve its contents; it was obtained by undue influence, which the courts treat as coercion rather than persuasion; it was forged or obtained by fraud; it was not signed and witnessed as section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 requires; or it had been revoked. Unfairness is not a ground. Separately, a will that contains a clerical error or misunderstands instructions can be rectified under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. A claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975 does not challenge the will's validity at all.
A validity challenge is brought by someone with an interest in the estate. Civil Procedure Rule 57.7(1) requires the claim to state what that interest is. Usually it is someone who would receive more under an earlier will or under the intestacy rules if the challenged will fell away. An Inheritance Act 1975 claim is limited to the categories in section 1(1) of the Act: a spouse or civil partner; a former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried or formed a new civil partnership; a cohabitant who lived with the person as a couple for the two years before the death; a child of the person; someone treated by them as a child of the family; and anyone they were maintaining immediately before the death. The person must have died domiciled in England and Wales.
An Inheritance Act 1975 claim must be made within six months of the date representation (the grant of probate or letters of administration) is first taken out, unless the court gives permission. Section 4 also allows a claim before any grant. An application to rectify a will under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 has the same six-month limit. A challenge to the validity of a will has no period set by the Limitation Act 1980. The 12 years often quoted comes from section 22, which is about claims to a share of an estate, not challenges to a will. Delay can still weaken a validity challenge.
No official body publishes what contesting a will costs, so no figure is given here. The court fee to issue a claim is set by the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 and depends on the court and type of claim. Under CPR 44.2 the general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs, but the court can make a different order. In probate claims the courts recognise two exceptions. If the person who made the will, or the people who benefit from it, caused the litigation, costs may be paid out of the estate. If the circumstances reasonably led to an investigation, the court may make no order, leaving each side to pay its own costs. GOV.UK does not list will or inheritance disputes among the matters legal aid covers.
Yes. A caveat entered at the Probate Registry stops a grant being issued. GOV.UK says it costs £4 and lasts six months, and it can be extended. If someone with an interest in the estate issues a warning, the person who entered the caveat has 14 days from service, counting the day of service, to enter an appearance or issue a summons for directions. Otherwise the caveat stops having effect. GOV.UK warns that entering a caveat can lead to legal action and legal costs.
If a will is found invalid, it has no effect. The estate passes under the last earlier valid will or, if there is none, under the intestacy rules. Any grant made under the invalid will can be revoked. A successful Inheritance Act claim leaves the will in place. The court's order changes how the estate is shared, and under section 19 of the 1975 Act the order is treated as having effect from the date of death.
Sources
Related guides