How to Contest a Will in England and Wales in 2026?

Contact Us

contact

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

To contest a will in 2026, you must prove legal invalidity due to lack of capacity, undue influence, fraud, or improper execution. Alternatively, dependents can claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 if they were left without reasonable financial provision. Strict time limits apply, often six months from the Grant of Probate. This comprehensive guide will help you understand how to contest a will with knowledge and confidence. Don’t forget to download the document we attached at the bottom, and let’s embark on this journey together!

The Increasing Complexity of Will Disputes

The landscape of inheritance in the UK has reached a turning point in 2026. As property values continue to rise and “blended family” structures become the norm, the frequency of contentious probate cases has surged. Contesting a will is a rigorous legal undertaking governed primarily by the Wills Act 1837 and the Administration of Justice Act 1982.


Under English law, “testamentary freedom” is a core principle, the right to leave your estate to whomever you choose. However, this is not an absolute right. If a will was created under duress, or if it fails to provide for those legally entitled to support, the law provides a pathway for a challenge.

how to contest a will


Section 1: The Legal Framework of Contentious Probate in England and Wales

To understand how to contest a Will in 2026, one must first understand the unique philosophy of English Law regarding death and property. Unlike many international jurisdictions, England and Wales operate under the powerful principle of Testamentary Freedom.

1.1 Testamentary Freedom vs. Forced Heirship

In 2026, the bedrock of our probate system remains the right of an individual to leave their worldly possessions to whomever they choose. This is a sharp contrast to “Civil Law” jurisdictions found in much of Europe (such as France, Italy, or Spain) and parts of the Middle East, which utilize “Forced Heirship” rules. In those countries, a specific portion of an estate is legally reserved for children or spouses, regardless of what the Will says.

In England and Wales, you have the legal right to disinherit your children, ignore your relatives, and leave your entire fortune to a cat shelter or a distant charity. However, as society has evolved, the law has introduced “checks and balances” to ensure this freedom isn’t used to commit injustice or leave dependents as a burden on the state. This balance is managed through two primary pieces of legislation:

  • The Wills Act 1837: Which dictates how a Will must be physically and legally constructed.
  • The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975: Which allows the court to intervene if the Will’s distribution is deemed “unreasonable.”

1.2 The Concept of “Standing”: Who Has the Right to Sue?

A common misconception in 2026 is that anyone who feels slighted by a death can sue the estate. In reality, the court requires a claimant to have “Standing.” To have standing in a validity challenge, you must have a direct financial interest in the outcome. This means you must be able to prove that if the current contested Will is set aside by a judge, you would stand to benefit under:

  • A Previous Will: An earlier, valid version of the Will that was replaced by the one you are now contesting.
  • The Rules of Intestacy: If there is no earlier Will, the law dictates that the estate follows a specific hierarchy of inheritance (Spouse -> Children -> Parents -> Siblings). If you are not in that hierarchy, you likely lack standing to challenge the Will’s validity.

1.3 The Burden of Proof and the “Presumption of Validity”

In 2026, the law starts with the Presumption of Validity. If a Will appears to be signed and witnessed correctly on its face, the court assumes it is valid. The “Burden of Proof” lies with the person contesting the Will. You must provide “clear and compelling” evidence to overrule this presumption.

However, there are specific “suspicious circumstances” where the burden shifts. For example, if the person who wrote the Will is also the main beneficiary, the court may require them to prove that the testator truly knew and approved of the contents.

1.4 Contentious Probate in the Digital Age

As we move through 2026, the legal framework is adapting to the Electronic Wills and video-witnessing protocols that emerged during the early 2020s. While the core of the Wills Act 1837 remains, the “Technical Execution” grounds for contesting a Will have expanded to include digital signatures and the verification of remote witnesses. Understanding these nuances is often the difference between a successful claim and a dismissed case.

Section 2: The Legal Battleground of Will Validity – An In-Depth Analysis

The validity of a Will is the foundation of the probate process. If the foundation is cracked, the entire distribution of the estate can be overturned. In 2026, challenging a Will on the grounds of invalidity remains one of the most complex areas of UK law, requiring a synthesis of medical evidence, historical testimony, and strict statutory compliance.

2.1 Lack of Testamentary Capacity: The Mental Battleground

The most frequent catalyst for a Will dispute is the allegation that the testator (the person making the Will) lacked the requisite mental capacity at the time of execution. As our population ages and the prevalence of conditions like dementia and Alzheimer’s increases, the courts have become increasingly sophisticated in how they evaluate the “soundness of mind.”

The Definitive Test: Banks v Goodfellow (1870)

Despite being over 150 years old, the judgment in Banks v Goodfellow remains the gold standard for assessing capacity. To have testamentary capacity, the testator must meet four specific criteria:

  • Nature and Effect: They must understand that they are making a Will and understand what a Will actually does (distributes assets upon death).
  • Extent of Assets: They must have a general idea of the size and value of their “estate.” They do not need to know the exact penny, but they must realize if they own a house, bank accounts, or significant investments.
  • Moral Claims: They must be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect. For example, if they have three children, they must be aware of them and the “moral claim” those children have to the estate, even if they choose to disinherit them.
  • Absence of Delusion: They must not be suffering from any “disorder of the mind” or “insane delusion” that influences them to dispose of their property in a way they wouldn’t have otherwise.

The Modern Interface: The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005

While Banks v Goodfellow governs Will validity, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the statutory framework for all other decision-making. In 2026, practitioners must navigate the “overlap” between these two. The MCA 2005 starts with the presumption of capacity; however, in probate litigation, if a “real doubt” is raised about capacity, the burden of proof often shifts back to the person propounding the Will to prove that the testator was of sound mind.

The “Golden Rule” for Solicitors

High-authority legal professionals adhere to the Golden Rule, as established in Kenward v Adams [1975]. This rule dictates that where a testator is aged or has been seriously ill, the making of the Will should be witnessed or approved by a medical practitioner who satisfies themselves of the testator’s capacity and records their examination in writing.

The Consequence of Failure: If a solicitor failed to follow the Golden Rule in 2026, the court is significantly more likely to view the Will with suspicion. This failure doesn’t automatically invalidate the Will, but it opens the door for a robust legal challenge.

2.2 Undue Influence: The “Overborne” Will

Undue influence is often whispered about in family circles but remains the most difficult ground to prove in a UK court. This is because “influence” itself is perfectly legal. You can persuade, plead, or appeal to someone’s affections to get them to leave you money. Undue influence only occurs when that persuasion crosses the line into coercion.

The Definition of Coercion

The court defines coercion as pressure that “overbears the will” of the testator. It means the testator thought, “I am doing this not because I want to, but because I must, for the sake of peace.” As established in Hall v Hall (1868), “The will of a testator is the only thing that should be expressed in his testament.”

The “But For” Test

In 2026, judges apply a rigorous “But For” analysis. The court must be satisfied that:

  • Influence was exerted.
  • That influence was “undue” (coercive).

But for that influence, the Will would not have been made in its current form.

Case Study: Re Edwards [2007]

This case is a cornerstone of modern undue influence claims. Mrs. Edwards, a frail widow, left her entire estate to one of her two sons, Terry. Terry had told his mother that his brother, Cliff, was a “thief” and a “liar”, accusations that were entirely false.

The Ruling: The court found that Terry had engaged in “mind poisoning.” Even though there was no physical violence, the constant drip-feed of lies to a vulnerable woman constituted undue influence. The Will was set aside.

2026 Application: Today, we look for “Badges of Fraud” or suspicious circumstances, such as a beneficiary who:

  • Isolates the testator from family/friends.
  • Arranges the appointment with the solicitor.
  • Is present during the discussions or signing of the Will.
  • Prevents the testator from seeking independent advice.

2.3 Lack of Knowledge and Approval

Even if a testator has capacity and isn’t being coerced, they must know and approve what they are signing. This ground is the “safety net” of probate law. It is often used when a Will is “suspicious”, for instance, if it leaves a massive amount of money to a cleaner, a new “friend,” or the person who typed the Will.

The Rule in Barry v Butlin (1838)

This ancient rule remains vital in 2026: If a party writes or prepares a Will under which they take a benefit, that is a circumstance that should “rightly excite the suspicion of the Court.” The court will not grant probate unless the suspicion is removed and the court is satisfied that the paper expresses the true Will of the deceased.

2.4 Fraud and Forgery

In the digital age of 2026, forgery has evolved. While “wet ink” signatures can still be forged, we are seeing a rise in “electronic” fraud.
Wet Ink Forgery: Challenging a signature requires a joint expert witness, a forensic handwriting analyst, who compares the Will signature against known samples from the deceased’s lifetime.
Fraudulent Calumny: This is a specific type of fraud where a beneficiary tells lies about a rival’s character to the testator to get them disinherited. It is similar to undue influence but focuses on the lie rather than the pressure.

2.5 Improper Execution (Technical Failure)

Under Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, a Will must be:

  • In writing.
  • Signed by the testator (or by someone else in their presence and at their direction).
  • The signature must be made or acknowledged in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time.
  • Each witness must attest and sign the Will (or acknowledge their signature) in the presence of the testator.

In 2026, the strictness of these rules remains a primary cause of Will invalidity. If a witness stepped out of the room for a phone call while the other was signing, the Will is void. There is no “close enough” in Will execution; compliance must be absolute.

Section 3: The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 — “Reasonable Financial Provision”

In the legal world of 2026, it is a common misconception that a valid Will is the final word on an estate. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the courts of England and Wales possess the extraordinary power to effectively “rewrite” a deceased person’s Will (or the rules of intestacy) if it fails to make “reasonable financial provision” for specific individuals.
This Act exists to ensure that those who were financially dependent on the deceased, or those to whom the deceased had a moral obligation, are not left in hardship.

3.1 Who is Eligible to Claim?

Not everyone can claim under the 1975 Act. The law defines a strict list of eligible applicants:

  • Spouses or Civil Partners: The “husband, wife, or civil partner” of the deceased.
  • Former Spouses/Civil Partners: Provided they have not remarried or entered a new civil partnership.
  • Cohabitees (The 2-Year Rule): Any person who lived in the same household as the deceased, as a “husband, wife, or civil partner,” for at least two years immediately preceding the death.
  • Children: This includes biological children, adopted children, and even adult children.
  • “Children of the Family”: Anyone treated by the deceased as a child of the family (e.g., step-children).
  • Dependants: Any other person who was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased immediately before their death.

3.2 The Two-Year Rule for Cohabitees: A Growing Trend in 2026

As common-law partnerships become increasingly prevalent, the “2-Year Rule” is one of the most litigated areas of the Act. To succeed, a cohabitee must prove they lived with the deceased in a relationship of “permanence and stability.” In 2026, the courts look for “intertwined lives”, shared bank accounts, joint utility bills, and evidence from social circles that the couple functioned as a domestic unit.
If successful, a cohabitee is entitled to “maintenance” provision. This is intended to provide them with a standard of living that is reasonable in the circumstances, though it is usually less than the “spouse standard.”

3.3 The Adult Child Dilemma: Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017]

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the 1975 Act is the claim by an independent adult child. Since the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017], these claims have become significantly more difficult.
In Ilott, an estranged daughter was initially awarded a large sum despite her mother leaving everything to animal charities. The Supreme Court eventually clarified that:

  • Adult children do not have an automatic right to an inheritance.
  • If an adult child is financially independent and living comfortably, their claim will likely fail.
  • However, if the child is in significant financial need and the estate is large enough to help them without depriving other beneficiaries, a claim remains viable.

In 2026, the court weighs the child’s “need” against the “testamentary intentions” of the parent. If the parent left a “Letter of Wishes” explaining why they disinherited the child, the child’s legal battle becomes much harder.

3.4 The “Section 3 Factors”: How the Judge Decides

The court does not make decisions based on emotion; it uses the Section 3 Factors to determine if provision should be made and how much it should be. The judge must consider:

  • Financial Resources and Needs: Both the claimant’s current and future financial needs, as well as those of the existing beneficiaries.
  • Moral Obligations: Did the deceased have a responsibility to look after this person? (e.g., a child with a disability or a long-term partner).
  • Size and Nature of the Estate: A claim against a £2 million estate is viewed differently than a claim against a £50,000 estate.
  • Conduct: Did the claimant treat the deceased poorly? “Disentitling conduct” can reduce or eliminate a claim.
  • Any Physical or Mental Disability: Of the applicant or any beneficiary.

3.5 The “Spouse Standard” vs. The “Maintenance Standard”

It is vital to understand that the law treats spouses differently than everyone else:

  • The Spouse Standard: Surviving spouses or civil partners are entitled to provision that is “reasonable in all the circumstances,” regardless of whether it is required for their maintenance. This often aligns with what they might have received in a “divorce settlement” (the “Divorce Cross-Check”).
  • The Maintenance Standard: All other claimants (children, cohabitees, dependants) are limited to what is reasonable for their maintenance. This means a sum to help them meet daily living expenses, rather than a windfall to build wealth.

3.6 Strict Time Limits: The 6-Month Rule

The most dangerous part of a 1975 Act claim is the statute of limitations. You must issue your claim in court within six months of the date of the Grant of Probate. While the court has the discretion to allow late claims, it rarely does so unless there is an exceptional reason for the delay.
In 2026, with the speed of digital probate, this window closes faster than many realize. Missing this deadline usually means losing your right to claim forever.

Section 4: The Strategic Caveat and Critical Time Limits

In the world of contentious probate, timing is not just a factor, it is the determining factor. Even the most legally sound claim will fail if procedural deadlines are missed. In 2026, the primary mechanism for protecting a claimant’s interest is the Caveat, a small but mighty legal “freeze” that stops the clock on an estate.

4.1 The Caveat: Your First Line of Defense

A Caveat is a notice given to the HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) which prevents the Probate Registry from issuing a Grant of Probate. Without a Grant of Probate, the executors cannot legally distribute the assets of the estate.

Why is this the most powerful tool for a claimant?

  • Asset Protection: It prevents money from being spent or property from being sold while you investigate the validity of the Will.
  • Leverage: It forces the executors to communicate with you. They cannot ignore your claim if they cannot move forward with the estate.
  • Cost-Effective: In 2026, a Caveat can be lodged online via the GOV.UK portal for a nominal fee of just £3. It remains in force for six months and can be renewed for further six-month periods.

4.2 The “Warning” and “Appearance”: High-Stakes Legal Chess

While a Caveat is easy to lodge, it is also easy to challenge. This is where many self-represented claimants fail.

  • The Warning: If an executor believes your Caveat is “frivolous” or simply wants to proceed with probate, they can issue a “Warning“ to your Caveat. This is a formal document served by the Registry that demands you explain your interest in the estate.
  • The Appearance: Once you are served with a Warning, you have a strict 14-day window to enter an “Appearance.” This is not a physical appearance in court; it is a formal written response that makes the Caveat “permanent.”
  • The Risk: If you fail to enter an Appearance within 14 days, the Caveat is removed, the Grant of Probate is issued, and your leverage vanishes instantly.
  • The “Cost” Trap: Once an Appearance is entered, the Caveat can only be removed by a Court Order or by the consent of both parties. At this stage, the “losing” party may be liable for the other side’s legal costs. Therefore, you should only enter an Appearance if you have a bona fide legal claim.

4.3 Statute of Limitations: The 6-Month Cliff

Beyond the technicalities of Caveats, claimants must be acutely aware of the statutory time limits for bringing a claim to court.
The Inheritance Act 1975 Deadline: Claims for “reasonable financial provision” must be issued in court within 6 months of the date the Grant of Probate is issued.

  • Why so short? The law seeks to balance the rights of claimants with the rights of beneficiaries to receive their inheritance without years of delay.
  • 2026 Reality: While the court has the power under Section 4 of the 1975 Act to allow a claim “out of time,” it is extremely rare and requires exceptional circumstances (such as fraud or being misled by the executors).

The Doctrine of Laches (Validity Claims): Technically, there is no fixed statute of limitations for challenging the validity of a Will (e.g., forgery or lack of capacity). However, the principle of “Laches“ applies. If you sit on your rights and allow the executors to distribute the estate over several years, the court may rule that you have waited too long and “acquiesced” to the Will.

4.4 Summary of Key Deadlines in 2026


Action
Time Limit
Assets may be distributed

Lodging a Caveat
Any time before Probate is granted
Assets may be distributed

Responding to a Warning
14 Days		Caveat is removed automatically

Inheritance Act Claim
6 Months from Grant of Probate
Claim is usually barred forever

Validity Challenge
“Reasonable time” (Laches)
Court may refuse to hear the case

4.5 The “Larke v Nugus” Request: Gathering Evidence

Before the 6-month clock runs out, a specialist solicitor will issue a Larke v Nugus request to the firm that drafted the Will. This requires them to provide their “file of papers,” which includes:

  • Notes regarding the testator’s capacity.
  • Who was present during the signing.
  • Whether the “Golden Rule” was followed.

In 2026, refusing a Larke v Nugus request is seen as obstructive behavior by the courts, and the executor or solicitor involved may be ordered to pay the costs of the litigation regardless of the outcome.

Section 5: The 2026 Context — How Technology Has Redefined the Will Dispute

In 2026, the process of contesting a Will is no longer just a matter of paper files and witness testimonies. The rapid integration of technology into legal and medical practice has created a new landscape of digital evidence that can either make or break a case. From the way Wills are signed to the way a testator’s mental state is analyzed, technology has introduced both new safeguards and new vulnerabilities.

5.1 The Legacy of Video Witnessing: A Double-Edged Sword

While the emergency video-witnessing provisions of the early 2020s have largely expired in favor of a return to physical presence, the Wills executed during that period are now entering probate. In 2026, we are seeing a surge in “Technical Execution” challenges specifically targeting these “Lockdown Wills.”


The primary issue for a claimant is the “Off-Camera Presence“ theory. In a physical signing, it is obvious who is in the room. In a video signing, a coercive beneficiary could have been standing just behind the camera, using hand signals or written prompts to pressure the testator. In 2026, solicitors are increasingly using Metadata Analysis and forensic reviews of the video recordings (if they exist) to check for eye-movement cues or “hidden” participants that suggest Undue Influence.

5.2 AI and the “Digital Autopsy” of Mental Capacity

Perhaps the most significant shift in 2026 is the use of AI-Integrated Medical Records to assess testamentary capacity.

  • The Granular Timeline: Modern EHR (Electronic Health Record) systems now use AI to flag “fluctuating capacity” markers in real-time. We can now look at a testator’s digital medical footprint, such as biometric data from smartwatches or interaction logs with healthcare portals, to determine their likely state of mind on the exact hour the Will was signed.
  • Linguistic Forensics: In 2026, specialized AI tools can compare the “Linguistic DNA” of a contested Will against the deceased’s historical emails, texts, and letters. If the Will uses a complexity of legal jargon that deviates significantly from the testator’s lifelong writing style (and no solicitor was involved), this provides high-authority evidence of Lack of Knowledge and Approval.

5.3 Digital Assets and the “Third Category” of Property

With the formal recognition of digital assets as personal property in late 2025, the stakes of Will disputes have expanded to include cryptocurrency, NFTs, and digital intellectual property.

  • The Verification Trap: In 2026, a major ground for contesting a Will is the “Access Dilemma.” If a Will leaves a Bitcoin private key to a beneficiary, but the testator was suffering from cognitive decline and “hallucinated” the existence of the assets or the codes, the Will can be challenged on the basis that the testator did not understand the “Extent of their Estate.“

5.4 The “Paperless” Future and Cybersecurity Risks

As we move toward the potential legalisation of fully Electronic Wills, the focus of litigation is shifting from “handwriting experts” to “forensic IT specialists.” In 2026, a Will’s validity may depend on the Audit Trail of the document. Was it edited after the “electronic signature” was applied? Was the IP address of the signer consistent with the testator’s location? These technical “badges of fraud” are now as critical as the physical signatures of the 19th century.

Section 6: Glossary of Contentious Probate Terms

In 2026, the terminology used in Will disputes can be daunting for the layperson. Understanding these specific legal “terms of art” is essential for anyone considering a challenge to an estate.

  • Admon with Will Annexed: A type of Grant of Representation issued when the deceased left a valid Will but did not appoint an executor, or the appointed executor is unable or unwilling to act.

  • Administrator: The person appointed by the court to manage an estate when there is no Will, or no executor available.

  • Beneficiary: A person or entity (such as a charity) entitled to receive assets from the estate.

  • Bona Vacantia: Literally “vacant goods.” This refers to ownerless property that passes to the Crown when someone dies without a Will and has no known next of kin.

  • Citation: A court-issued notice used to compel someone to take a specific step in the probate process, such as accepting or refusing a Grant of Probate.

  • Devastavit: A legal claim against an executor for “wasting” the assets of an estate, for example, by selling property significantly below market value or mismanaging funds.

  • Intermeddling: When someone who is not an executor starts performing the duties of an executor (like moving the deceased’s belongings). This can make them legally liable for the estate’s debts.

  • Intestacy: The state of dying without a valid Will. In 2026, the Rules of Intestacy strictly dictate who inherits, often excluding cohabiting partners.

  • Larke v Nugus Statement: A formal statement requested from the solicitor who drafted a Will to provide evidence about the circumstances and the testator’s state of mind.

  • Legacy: A specific gift left in a Will, such as a sum of money (Pecuniary Legacy) or a specific item like a watch (Specific Legacy).

  • Propound a Will: The legal act of proving that a Will is valid and asking the court to grant probate based on that document.

  • Residuary Estate: What remains of the estate after all debts, funeral expenses, and specific legacies have been paid out. This is often where the largest disputes occur.

Why You Need Expert Representation

Contesting a will is a race against time and a battle of evidence. At Contest a Will Today, we specialize in the technicalities of UK probate law. If you believe a loved one’s final wishes were ignored or manipulated, early intervention is your best chance at securing your inheritance.

FAQs

Q1: Can I contest a will after the money has already been distributed?

Yes, but it is extremely difficult. Once the Grant of Probate is issued and executors distribute assets, the money is often spent or moved. You can sue the executors for “devastavit” (wasting the estate) if they distributed the money knowing there was a potential claim, but “tracing” assets into the hands of beneficiaries is a costly legal process. This is why a Caveat is essential before distribution.

Q2: What is a Larke v Nugus statement, and why is it the first step?

Based on the case Larke v Nugus [1979], if there is a dispute, the solicitor who drafted the will is under a duty to provide a full statement regarding the circumstances of the will’s execution. This statement must include the solicitor’s notes, any medical reports obtained at the time, and details of who was present. Refusal to provide this can result in the solicitor being ordered to pay the legal costs of the dispute.

Q3: How does “No Win No Fee” (CFA) work in probate?

A Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) means you pay nothing upfront. If you win, the solicitor takes a “success fee” from the inheritance. In 2026, solicitors also use After the Event (ATE) Insurance to protect you against the risk of having to pay the other side’s legal costs if you lose. This makes the “Elite” legal representation accessible to those without deep pockets.

Let’s Do This Together

Contesting a will could become an overwhelming experience if not accompanied by expert guidance and support. Our mission is to provide you with all the needed information, support, and authority to get through this journey, with only one goal in mind: Fairness.

To our team, this process is not about winning; it’s about claiming what was yours from the beginning.

Get your free, no-obligation case assessment. Call 08002980029 or visit contestawilltoday.com

contact

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

Frequently asked questions.

Disputes over wills can arise in several circumstances, including:

  • Testamentary capacity: The person who made the will (known as the testator) must have had the mental capacity to understand what they were doing and the consequences of their actions. This means that they must have been able to understand the nature and extent of their property, the people they were giving their property to, and the people they were excluded from their will.

 

  • Valid execution: The will must have been executed correctly under the law. This means it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • Undue influence: The testator must have made the will freely and without any pressure from others. The will may be invalid if someone was unduly influenced to make a will. Undue influence can occur when someone takes advantage of a testator’s vulnerability, such as if the testator is elderly, ill, or has a mental disability.

 

  • Fraud or forgery: If the will was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will, the will may be invalid.

 

Claims against a will must usually be made within six months of the grant of probate being issued. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate. If a claim is not made within this time, it may be too late to challenge the will.

As such, executors often wait until this six-month period has expired before distributing the estate. This is to avoid having to distribute the estate and then having to take it back if a successful claim is made against the will.

Here are some examples of how these disputes can arise:

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will. For example, if the testator was suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease at the time the will was made.
  •  

A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was not executed correctly. For example, if the will is not signed by the testator or if it is not witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that they were unduly influenced to make the will. For example, if a caregiver or another family member pressured the testator to make the will in their favour.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will. For example, if someone forged the testator’s signature on the will or if someone lied to the testator about the contents of the will.

If you are thinking about disputing a will, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.



Types of Trusts

Many different types of trusts can be set up, depending on your specific needs and goals. Some of the most common types of trusts include:
Bare Trusts: A bare trust is a simple type of trust in which the trustee holds the assets for the benefit of the beneficiary. The beneficiary is entitled to the income and capital of the trust as soon as they are old enough to receive them.

Interest in Possession Trusts: An interest in possession trust is a type of trust in which the beneficiary is entitled to the income from the trust immediately, but not to the capital until a later date. This type of trust is often used for minor beneficiaries or for beneficiaries who are not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

Discretionary Trusts: A discretionary trust is a type of trust in which the trustee has the discretion to decide how and when to distribute the income and capital of the trust to the beneficiaries. This type of trust is often used for families with multiple beneficiaries or beneficiaries with special needs.

Accumulation Trusts: An accumulation trust is a type of trust in which the income from the trust is accumulated and not distributed to the beneficiaries until a later date. This type of trust is often used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

Mixed Trusts: A mixed trust is a type of trust that combines elements of different types of trusts. For example, a trust may be a discretionary trust for one beneficiary and an interest in possession trust for another beneficiary.

Settlor-Interested Trusts: A settlor-interested trust is a type of trust in which the settlor (the person who creates the trust) retains some interest in the trust assets. For example, the settlor may retain the right to receive income from the trust or to appoint the trustee.

Non-Resident Trusts: A non-resident trust is a type of trust that is created and governed by the laws of a country other than the country where the settlor or beneficiaries reside.
Which type of trust is right for you will depend on your specific needs and goals. It is important to consult with an estate planning attorney to discuss your options and choose the type of trust that is best for you.
Here are some examples of how different types of trusts can be used:
A bare trust can be used to hold assets for a minor child until they reach the age of majority.

An interest in possession trust can be used to provide income to a beneficiary who is not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

A discretionary trust can be used to manage assets for a family with multiple beneficiaries or for beneficiaries with special needs.

An accumulation trust can be used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

A mixed trust can be used to achieve a variety of different goals, such as providing income to one beneficiary and preserving capital for another beneficiary.

A settlor-interested trust can be used to retain some control over trust assets after the settlor has created the trust.

A non-resident trust can be used to reduce estate taxes or to protect assets from creditors.
It is important to note that this is just a brief overview of the different types of trusts. There are many other types of trusts available, and each type of trust has its own specific features and benefits. For more information please visit www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/types-of-trust

Inheritance trust disputes can be complex and varied, but some common scenarios include:

  • Disputes over the validity of the trust: This can happen if the settlor (the person who created the trust) does not have the mental capacity to create a trust, or if the trust deed was not executed correctly.

 

  • Disputes over the interpretation of the trust deed: If the trust deed is poorly drafted or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • Disputes over the appointment or removal of trustees: Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee is not acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may apply to the court to have the trustee removed.

 

  • Disputes over the investment of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to invest trust assets prudently. If a trustee makes investments that are too risky or that lose money, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

  • Disputes over the distribution of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to distribute trust assets to the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. If a trustee distributes trust assets incorrectly, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

Here are some specific examples of inheritance trust disputes that have occurred in the UK:

  • In one case, a beneficiary disputed the validity of a trust deed on the grounds that the settlor (the person who created the trust) did not have the mental capacity to create a trust at the time it was set up.

 

  • In another case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees made a number of risky investments that lost money.



  • In a third case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees distributed trust assets to the beneficiaries in a way that was not in accordance with the terms of the trust deed.

 

Other possible disputes include:

  • A beneficiary was expecting more than what is set out in the trust document. This may be because the beneficiary had a reasonable belief that they would receive more, or because the trust document is unclear about the beneficiary’s entitlement.

 

  • The individual who set up the trust was provided with negligent or misleading advice. If the settlor was not properly advised about the consequences of setting up a trust, or if they were given incorrect information, they may be able to challenge the trust.

 

  • The trust document is either incomplete or unclear about the wishes of the deceased. If the trust document is incomplete or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • A trustee acts against the best interests of the beneficiary or doesn’t administer the trust correctly. Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee breaches their duty, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee.

If you are involved in an inheritance trust dispute, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

Contesting a will is challenging the validity of a will. This can be done on a number of grounds, including.

  • The testator (the person who made the will) did not have the mental capacity to make a will.
  • The will was not executed correctly, i.e., it was not signed by the testator or witnessed by two independent witnesses.
  • The testator was unduly influenced to make the will.
  • The will was forged or fraudulent.

 

Contentious probate is any dispute about the administration of a deceased person’s estate. This can include disputes about

  • The validity of the will.
  • The interpretation of the will.
  • The appointment or removal of executors.
  • The distribution of the estate assets.
  • The management of the estate.
  • In the UK, contentious probate is dealt with by the High Court.

 

The main difference between contesting a will and contentious probate is that contesting a will is specifically challenging the validity of the will, while contentious probate can include a wide range of disputes about the administration of an estate.

Here is an example:

Contesting a will: A beneficiary challenges the validity of a will on the grounds that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will.

Contentious probate: A beneficiary disputes the interpretation of a will and argues that they are entitled to a larger share of the estate than they have been given.

It is important to note that the two terms are often used interchangeably. For example, a lawyer might say that they are “dealing with a contentious probate matter” when they are actually challenging the validity of a will.

If you are thinking about contesting a will or pursuing a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

The time limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK is six months from the grant of probate. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate.

If you do not make your claim within this six-month time limit, you may need to apply to the court for permission to make a late claim. The court will only grant permission if you have a good reason for not making your claim on time.

There are a number of factors that the court will consider when deciding whether to grant permission for a late claim, including:

  • Why did you not make your claim on time?
  • The strength of your case.
  • Whether the other beneficiaries will be prejudiced if your claim is allowed to proceed.
  • If the court grants you permission to make a late claim, you will need to file your claim within 28 days.

 

It is important to note that there are some exceptions to the six-month time limit. For example, if the executor has committed fraud or concealed assets from the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may be able to make a claim after the six-month time limit has expired.

If you are thinking about making a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. A lawyer can assess your case and advise you on the time limits that apply and whether you have a good case.

Here are some examples of when you might be able to make a late contentious probate claim:

  • You were not aware of the death of the deceased until after the six-month time limit had expired.
  • You were unable to make your claim on time because you were ill or incapacitated.
  • The executor has deliberately concealed information from you about the estate.
  • The executor has committed fraud in the administration of the estate.

 

The 12-year limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK applies to claims for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. This means that if you are making a claim for financial provision from an estate, you must do so within 12 years of the date of the deceased’s death.

The reason for the 12-year limit is to encourage people to make their claims as soon as possible after the deceased’s death. This is because it can become more difficult to investigate and prove a claim after a long period of time has elapsed.

If you are unsure whether you are able to make a late contentious probate claim, you should seek legal advice.

Most disputes in the UK are resolved out of court through mediation and negotiation. This is because it is generally faster, cheaper, and less stressful for all involved.

If you are considering disputing a will, it is important to contact a contentious probate specialist before you involve any other relatives or beneficiaries of the estate. A specialist lawyer can advise you on your legal options and help you to resolve the dispute quickly and efficiently.

Here are some of the benefits of resolving a will dispute out of court:

  • It is faster and cheaper than going to court.
  • It is less stressful for all involved.
  • It allows you to maintain relationships with other family members and beneficiaries.
  • You have more control over the outcome of the dispute.

 

There are a number of steps that you can take to try to resolve a contentious probate dispute without going to court, including

  • Negotiation: You can try to negotiate a settlement with the other parties to the dispute. This may involve making concessions on your part, but it can be a good way to avoid the time and expense of court proceedings.
  • Mediation: Mediation is a process where an independent mediator helps the parties to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Mediation can be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court, but it is important to note that it is not binding on the parties.
  • Arbitration: Arbitration is a more formal process than mediation, and it is binding on the parties. However, it can still be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court.

 

If you are unable to resolve the dispute amicably, you will need to file a claim with the High Court. The court will then hold a hearing to decide the case.

Contact our Team

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

email Us

News and Insights