Key cases on contesting a will or challenging an estate in England and Wales, including testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence, fraud, formalities, rectification, Inheritance Act 1975 claims and proprietary estoppel. Where we do not have a full case summary for you to click through to and read, we have provided a short summary of the case here.
- Baker v Hewston [2023] EWHC 1145 (Ch)
- Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 – The foundational common-law test for testamentary capacity.
- Barrett v Bem [2012] EWCA Civ 52
- Barry v Butlin (1838) 2 Moo PC 480 – The testator left a quarter of his estate to the solicitor who drafted the will, disinheriting his only son. The will was upheld on the evidence, but the case is the foundational authority on the “suspicious circumstances” doctrine: where a person who prepares a will takes a benefit under it, the court’s suspicion is aroused and the propounder must produce clear evidence that the testator knew and approved its contents.
- Bell v Georgiou [2002] EWHC 1080 (Ch) – The leading modern definition of “clerical error” for rectification under section 20(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. Blackburne J explained that a clerical error occurs where the testator, solicitor, clerk or typist writes something they did not intend to insert, or omits something they intended to insert – to be contrasted with a failure to understand the testator’s instructions under section 20(1)(b). The remedy requires proof both that the will fails to carry out the testator’s instructions and what those instructions actually were.
- Bhusate v Patel [2019] EWHC 470 (Ch)
- Bowerman v Bowerman [2025] EWHC 2947 (Ch)
- Bracey v Curley [2022] EWHC 359 (Ch)
- Casson v Dade (1781) 1 Bro CC 99 – An asthmatic testatrix retired to her carriage while her will was witnessed indoors, but could see the witnesses sign through the carriage window. The will was upheld, establishing that “presence” under the Wills Act requires line of sight rather than physical proximity. Applied in Couser v Couser [1996] 1 WLR 1301 (below) and by Senior Judge Lush in Re Clarke to the execution of an LPA through a glass door.
- Clitheroe v Bond [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch)
- Couser v Couser [1996] 1 WLR 1301 – Judge Colyer QC held that a valid acknowledgment of a signature under the Wills Act requires at least possible visual contact between the parties, not strict physical co-presence. Where a will is regular on its face and the testator’s intention clear, there is a heavy burden on anyone seeking to rebut the presumption of due execution. On the facts, the execution was a continuous transaction: when the testator acknowledged his signature after the second witness arrived, the first witness’s repeated protestations about validity amounted to an acknowledgment of her earlier signature, so the will was validly executed.
- Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336
- Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463
- Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch)
- Fuller v Strum [2001] EWCA Civ 1879 – A leading authority on knowledge and approval in probate: where the circumstances surrounding a will’s execution arouse the suspicion of the court, the propounder must affirmatively prove that the testator knew and approved its contents, so as to satisfy the court that the will represents the true wishes of the deceased.
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430
- Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch)
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890
- Hall v Hall (1868) LR 1 P & D 481 – Classic definition of undue influence in probate. Sir J.P. Wilde: “pressure of whatever character… so exerted as to overpower the volition without convincing the judgment” constitutes undue influence. Persuasion is lawful; coercion is not. A testator may be led but not driven.
- Hawes v Burgess [2013] EWCA Civ 74
- Hughes v Pritchard [2022] EWCA Civ 386
- Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17
- Jenkins v Evans [2025] EWHC 2438 (Ch)
- Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159
- Kelly v Brennan [2020] EWHC 245 (Ch)
- Key v Key [2010] EWHC 408 (Ch)
- Khatun v Hasan [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch)
- Larke v Nugus (1979) 123 SJ 337; [2000] WTLR 1033 (also known as Re Moss) – The Court of Appeal held that, where a will is challenged or serious questions arise about its preparation or execution, the solicitor who prepared it should provide information to assist the parties and avoid unnecessary litigation. A Larke v Nugus request is therefore a pre-action request for the will drafter’s file and explanation of how instructions were taken, capacity assessed, the will approved and execution carried out. It is particularly useful in cases involving testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence or suspicious circumstances.
- Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch)
- Maile v Maile [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch)
- Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2
- Mate v Mate [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch)
- Miles v Shearer [2021] EWHC 1000 (Ch)
- Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch)
- Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171 – The testatrix gave instructions for a will while she had capacity, but fell into a coma before execution and was only briefly roused to sign it. The court held that the will could still be valid if she had capacity when giving instructions, the will gave effect to those instructions, and she understood at execution that she was signing the will prepared from them. The case is the key exception to the usual requirement that full testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval exist at the moment of execution.
- Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35
- Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461 – An adult son brought a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975, but Oliver J held that need and blood relationship alone were not enough. The question was not whether the deceased had acted unreasonably, but whether the dispositions objectively produced an unreasonable result. The case became associated with the idea that an adult child should show some “moral claim” or special circumstance beyond mere relationship, although later authority has treated that as guidance rather than a rigid additional requirement.
- Re Fuld (No 3) [1968] P 675
- Re Groffman [1969] 1 WLR 733 – The testator had signed his will before asking two friends to witness it; each witness was taken separately into another room, shown or told of the signature, and signed in the testator’s presence. The will was held invalid because the testator had not signed or acknowledged his signature in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, as required by s 9 Wills Act 1837. The case illustrates strict compliance with execution formalities: sequential witnessing is not enough, even where testamentary intention is clear.
- Re Williams (Deceased) [2021] EWHC 586 (Ch)
- Rea v Rea [2024] EWCA Civ 169
- Rowe v Clarke [2005] EWHC 3068 (Ch)
- Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch)
- Sharp v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449
- Stephenson v Daley [2026] EWHC 53 (Ch)
- Sugden v Lord St Leonards (1876) 1 PD 154
- Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18
- Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 (Ch) – Shortly before his death from terminal cancer, Mr Wharton made a new will leaving his estate to his long-term partner, Maureen, whom he married three days before he died, excluding his three daughters. The daughters challenged the will for lack of capacity, want of knowledge and approval and undue influence, but Norris J upheld it as valid. The case is a strong illustration of the high threshold for probate undue influence: vulnerability and opportunity are not enough, and coercion should not be inferred unless the facts are inconsistent with any other explanation.
- Whittle v Whittle [2022] EWHC 925 (Ch)
- Wingrove v Wingrove (1885) 11 PD 81 – A classic probate undue influence authority, defining undue influence as coercion which overbears the testator’s free agency, so that the testator is forced to make a will they do not truly wish to make. Sir James Hannen emphasised that coercion may take many forms, from violence or confinement to slight pressure on a weak or dying testator. The case confirms the high threshold in probate: persuasion, appeals to affection or moral pressure are not enough, and the burden remains on the person alleging undue influence.
- Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 284 – A solicitor prepared a will for his client, Kitty Wells, under which he took the substantial residue of her estate. The House of Lords held that where a person who prepares or procures a will also takes a significant benefit under it, the court’s suspicion is aroused and the propounder must dispel that suspicion by proving the testator’s knowledge and approval. The case is a leading modern authority on suspicious circumstances and the burden of proof where a will benefits its drafter.
