Reviewed by Jennifer Wiss-Carline, Solicitor
There is no general jurisdiction in England and Wales to set aside, rewrite or depart from a will simply because it seems unfair. A dispute must fit a recognised legal route: a probate challenge to the validity or operative effect of the will, an application for rectification or construction, a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975, or a separate equitable or proprietary claim affecting estate assets. This page is a detailed guide to each of those routes, what they require you to prove, and which one fits which kind of concern.
It assumes you already know, in broad terms, that you want to challenge a will. If you are not yet sure whether you have a claim at all, start with our main guide to contesting a will in England and Wales, which covers standing, time limits, costs and process. This page goes a level deeper on the grounds themselves.
What counts as a “ground”?
A ground is a legally recognised reason that entitles the court to act. It is not the same as a moral grievance or a sense of unfairness. However strongly you feel that a will is wrong, the court can only intervene if your concern maps onto one of the grounds set out below. The grounds divide into five groups:
- Validity grounds. Reasons the will is not a valid will at all: lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval, undue influence, fraud, forgery, fraudulent calumny, and failure of the formalities in section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.
- Correction grounds. Reasons a valid will should be corrected or interpreted: rectification for clerical error or failure to understand instructions, and construction for ambiguity.
- Financial provision. A claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 that a valid will (or the intestacy rules) does not make reasonable financial provision for an eligible applicant.
- Equitable claims against the estate. Proprietary estoppel, where the deceased gave an assurance of inheritance that was relied on to the claimant’s detriment.
- Operative effect. Questions about whether what looks like a will is actually the last will: has it been revoked by a later will, a written revocation, destruction, marriage or civil partnership? Does an apparently missing will still operate? These are not validity challenges in the traditional sense but they can be decisive.
The first group attacks the will. The second fixes or interprets it. The third accepts the will but asks the court to vary the distribution. The fourth is a claim brought against the estate on the basis of a promise made during the deceased’s lifetime. The fifth asks whether the document before the court is actually the operative will at all. Identifying which group your concern falls into is the most important decision you will make, because the legal test, the evidence, the deadline and the remedy all change with the group.
How each ground actually works
Different grounds call for different kinds of proof, carry different burdens and lead to different outcomes. A single set of facts can often support more than one ground — for example, a will made by a frail testator in suspicious circumstances commonly raises lack of capacity, lack of knowledge and approval and (sometimes) undue influence in the alternative. Choosing which grounds to plead, and in what order, is a matter of strategy as much as law.
Three practical points are worth making before the detail:
- A partial challenge is possible. The court can refuse probate to particular words or clauses in a will while admitting the rest (Re Williams (Deceased) [2021] EWHC 586 (Ch)). You do not always have to attack the whole document.
- The civil standard of proof applies throughout. All grounds are decided on the balance of probabilities. But where the allegation is a serious one – particularly fraud, forgery or fraudulent calumny – the inherent improbability of the conduct alleged means the court will look for correspondingly cogent evidence before finding it proved (Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35; and, in the probate context, Re Fuld (No 3) [1968] P 675).
- The burden shifts. On some grounds the person propounding the will must prove it; on others the challenger must. Capacity and knowledge and approval have their own specific rules about presumptions and when they fall away. The burden and standard of proof table below summarises the position.
Propounding a will means putting it forward to the court as the valid last will of the deceased and asking the court to admit it to probate.
The rest of this page takes each ground in turn and explains what it is, when it applies, what evidence is needed and where to read more.
Quick comparison: the main grounds at a glance
| Ground | Route | What you must show | Typical outcome if you succeed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of testamentary capacity | Validity | The testator did not satisfy the Banks v Goodfellow test when they made the will | Will set aside; earlier will or intestacy applies |
| Lack of knowledge and approval | Validity | The testator did not know and approve the contents of the will | Will (or part of it) set aside |
| Undue influence | Validity | The testator was coerced; their free will was overborne | Will set aside |
| Fraud or forgery | Validity | The will or signature is forged, or was procured by deceit | Will set aside |
| Fraudulent calumny | Validity | A third party dishonestly poisoned the testator’s mind against a natural beneficiary | Will set aside (or affected gifts) |
| Failure of formalities | Validity | The will does not comply with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 | Will set aside |
| Rectification | Correction | Clerical error or failure to understand instructions | Will wording corrected |
| Construction | Interpretation | The will is ambiguous | Court determines meaning |
| Inheritance Act 1975 claim | Financial provision | You are eligible and the will/intestacy does not provide reasonably for you | Court varies distribution |
| Proprietary estoppel | Equitable claim | Assurance, reliance and detriment | Remedy based on promise (transfer, share or compensation) |
Validity grounds: challenging whether the will is legally valid
A validity challenge is an attack on the document itself. If the will is held invalid, the court will not admit it to probate (or will revoke the grant if one has already issued). The estate then passes under whatever earlier valid will exists, or, if there is none, under the intestacy rules.
The six recognised validity grounds are set out below. They are not mutually exclusive – it is common to plead lack of capacity and lack of knowledge and approval together, for example, and undue influence is often pleaded as an alternative.
Lack of testamentary capacity
Testamentary capacity is the mental ability required by law to make a valid will. The test is still the common law test set out in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549. The testator must:
- understand the nature of the act of making a will and its effects;
- understand the extent of the property they are disposing of;
- be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect; and
- not be suffering from any disorder of the mind that perverts their sense of right or prevents the exercise of their natural faculties.
The test is decision-specific and time-specific. A diagnosis of dementia does not automatically mean a person lacked capacity — and a person without a diagnosis can still lack capacity on the day.
- Typical evidence: GP and hospital records, care-home records, the will drafter’s file and attendance notes, witness evidence from family and carers, and expert medical evidence (often a retrospective capacity report from a psychiatrist or old-age specialist).
Lack of knowledge and approval
Even a testator with capacity must know and approve the contents of the will. That means understanding what is in the document and intending it to take effect as their will.
In most cases, due execution of a will by a testator with capacity raises a presumption of knowledge and approval. The presumption does not apply, and the court’s suspicion is said to be “excited”, where there are suspicious circumstances – for example, where a major beneficiary was involved in preparing the will, where the testator was blind, illiterate or frail, or where the will is a sharp departure from a long-standing testamentary pattern.
Where suspicion is excited, the person propounding the will must affirmatively prove that the testator knew and approved its contents.
Knowledge and approval is often the more appropriate ground where the testator clearly had capacity but the circumstances of the will’s preparation look wrong. It is also the correct ground where only part of the will is suspicious: the court can refuse probate to specific words or clauses while admitting the rest (Re Williams (Deceased)).
Undue influence
Undue influence in the context of wills is coercion: pressure so great that the testator’s own volition is overborne and the will expresses someone else’s wishes rather than theirs. Mere persuasion, even strong persuasion, is not enough (Wingrove v Wingrove (1885) 11 PD 81).
Unlike the law of lifetime gifts, there is no presumption of undue influence in wills. The person alleging it must prove it. The civil standard still applies – the balance of probabilities – but undue influence is evidentially difficult to prove. The court must be satisfied that coercion, rather than persuasion, dependence, family pressure or opportunity, is the more probable explanation for the will. It is not enough to show that someone had the power or opportunity to influence the testator; the influence must actually have been exercised so as to overbear the testator’s volition.The court will not infer undue influence merely because coercion is possible, or because someone had the opportunity to influence the testator. The question is whether, on the evidence, undue influence is more probable than any other explanation (Rea v Rea [2024] EWCA Civ 169; Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch)).
- Factors the court looks for: physical or mental frailty; isolation from other family; dependence on the alleged influencer; the influencer’s involvement in the will’s preparation; secrecy; a sudden change to a long-standing testamentary pattern; and the absence of a rational explanation for the new dispositions.
The Law Commission’s May 2025 report Modernising Wills Law recommends statutory reform to make it easier to infer undue influence in appropriate cases. Those recommendations are not the current law unless and until enacted.
Fraud and forgery
Fraud and forgery are distinct but often pleaded together. Forgery means the will, or the testator’s signature on it, is not genuine – someone else wrote it or signed it. Fraud more broadly means the will was procured by deceit: for example, the testator was tricked into signing a document they believed was something else, or was deceived into excluding a beneficiary by a false representation that did not rise to the level of fraudulent calumny.
Because an allegation of fraud or forgery is an allegation of serious dishonesty, the court will require cogent evidence. The burden of proof works slightly differently for the two. The ultimate burden of proving that a will is genuine and duly executed always rests on the propounder; once forgery is properly in issue, the propounder must negative it as part of proving the will. Fraud, by contrast, is a positive case of dishonest conduct that must be pleaded and proved by the party alleging it. In practice, the evidence in both kinds of case usually includes:
- handwriting expert evidence comparing the disputed signature to contemporaneous specimens;
- forensic document analysis (ink, paper, printing);
- evidence from attesting witnesses;
- evidence about the testator’s whereabouts and condition on the alleged date of execution.
Fraudulent calumny
Fraudulent calumny is a distinct, narrow and vivid ground. It applies where a third party dishonestly poisons the testator’s mind against a person who would otherwise be a natural object of their bounty, by making false statements about that person which the third party knows to be untrue or makes recklessly.
To succeed you must show:
- a false representation was made to the testator about the character or conduct of the disappointed beneficiary;
- the representation was made dishonestly – the maker knew it was false or did not care whether it was true; and
- the testator’s mind was poisoned by the representation and that affected the disposition in the will.
Honest belief, even mistaken belief, is a complete answer to a fraudulent calumny claim. That is what distinguishes it from undue influence.
Invalid execution and failure of formalities
To be valid, a will must comply with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. The will must be:
- in writing;
- signed by the testator (or by someone else in the testator’s presence and at their direction);
- signed with the intention of giving effect to the will;
- made or acknowledged in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and
- each witness must attest and sign the will, or acknowledge their signature, in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of each other).
Common execution failures include: witnesses who were not both present when the testator signed or acknowledged the signature; witness signatures added later; and wills signed without the necessary intention to give effect to the will. A separate witnessing issue arises where a beneficiary, or the spouse or civil partner of a beneficiary, acts as an attesting witness. That does not usually invalidate the will, but it may void the gift to that beneficiary under section 15 of the Wills Act 1837.
Subject to the narrow exception for privileged wills (made on actual military service or by a mariner or seaman at sea, which do not require section 9 formalities – see section 11 of the Wills Act 1837), a will must comply with section 9 to be valid.
The temporary remote witnessing regime introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic applied only to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2024 and is no longer available.
Is it really the operative will? Revocation, later wills and lost wills
Even a will that was validly executed at the time may no longer be the operative will by the date of death. Before challenging a will on the validity grounds above, it is always worth checking whether the document
being propounded is actually the testator’s last will.
How a will can be revoked
Under the Wills Act 1837, a will can be revoked in four main ways:
- by a later will or codicil that revokes the earlier will, either expressly or by inconsistency;
- by a separate written document declaring an intention to revoke, executed with the same formalities as a will;
- by the testator (or someone in their presence and by their direction) burning, tearing or otherwise destroying the will with the intention of revoking it; and
- by the testator’s subsequent marriage or civil partnership (section 18), unless the will was made in contemplation of that marriage or civil partnership and the statutory exception applies.
Divorce or dissolution does not revoke the whole will, but under section 18A the former spouse or civil partner is treated as having died on the date of the divorce or dissolution for the purposes of any gift or
appointment as executor in their favour, unless a contrary intention appears in the will.
Lost wills and the presumption of revocation
If an original will was last known to be in the testator’s possession and cannot be found after death, the court will normally presume that the testator destroyed it with the intention of revoking it (Sugden v
Lord St Leonards (1876) 1 PD 154; Rowe v Clarke [2005] EWHC 3068 (Ch)).
The presumption is rebuttable. The person seeking to rely on the missing will must produce cogent evidence of both its terms and the fact that it was not revoked – typically a solicitor’s copy, a draft, witness
evidence about the testator’s intentions, and evidence about where the will was kept and who had access to it.
Why it matters
These issues do not usually fit neatly under “grounds for contesting a will”, but they can end a dispute before the validity grounds above are ever reached. If an earlier will has been revoked by a later one that
you did not know about, your challenge may be to the wrong document. If a later will has gone missing, the question may be whether the presumption of revocation can be rebutted. Always ask the executors
whether they are aware of any later will, and request the will drafter’s file to check for revocation clauses and earlier wills.
Rectification and construction: fixing or interpreting the will
Rectification and construction are not validity challenges. The will is accepted as valid — the question is whether its wording can be corrected or interpreted.
Rectification under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 allows the court to correct a will that fails to carry out the testator’s intentions because of:
- a clerical error; or
- a failure to understand the testator’s instructions.
An application for rectification must normally be made within six months of the grant of representation, although the court has discretion to extend time.
Construction is the process by which the court interprets ambiguous language. Under section 21 of the 1982 Act, extrinsic evidence of the testator’s intention is admissible where the will is meaningless, where the language is ambiguous on its face, or where the language is ambiguous in light of surrounding circumstances.
Inheritance Act 1975 claims: reasonable financial provision
An Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim is not a challenge to the will. The claimant accepts that the will is valid; they say it (or the intestacy rules, where there is no will) does not make reasonable financial provision for them.
A 1975 Act claim is only available where the deceased died domiciled in England and Wales. Domicile is a technical concept distinct from residence or nationality and is a gating question in every 1975 Act claim.
The categories of person who may apply are set out in section 1 of the 1975 Act:
- the spouse or civil partner of the deceased;
- a former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried or entered into a subsequent civil partnership, provided no order has been made barring a future 1975 Act claim;
- a cohabitant who lived in the same household as the deceased, as if married or in a civil partnership, for the whole of the two-year period ending immediately before the date of death;
- a child of the deceased (of any age);
- a person treated as a child of the family; and
- any person who was being maintained by the deceased immediately before death.
For everyone except a current spouse or civil partner, the standard is such financial provision as it would be reasonable for the applicant to receive for their maintenance. For a current spouse or civil partner, the standard is higher: what would be reasonable in all the circumstances, whether or not required for maintenance.
The six-month time limit.
Under section 4 of the 1975 Act, a claim must normally be brought within six months of the grant of representation. A claim can in principle be issued before a grant has issued where the circumstances require it, but once the grant has been extracted, the six-month clock runs and the court’s permission is needed to bring a claim after it has expired. Permission is discretionary and is not guaranteed (Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336; Bhusate v Patel [2019] EWHC 470 (Ch)).
This is the correct route for many people who describe themselves as having been “left out of a will” or “treated unfairly by a will”, particularly adult children, cohabitants and dependants. It is not the right route if the real complaint is that the will is invalid – those cases belong under the validity grounds above.
Proprietary estoppel: broken promises to inherit
Proprietary estoppel is an equitable claim brought against the estate (and any beneficiary who has received the promised property). It applies where:
- the deceased made an assurance, clear enough in its context, that the claimant would receive identifiable property – land, a share in a business, a house, a farm, or another specific proprietary benefit (Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18);
- the claimant relied on that assurance; and
- the claimant suffered detriment in consequence — typically working for low or no wages, foregoing other opportunities, or investing money or labour in the property.
If those elements are made out and it would be unconscionable for the estate to resile from the assurance, the court will grant a remedy. The remedy is not automatically the promised property; it is whatever is necessary to avoid the unconscionable result, which may be a transfer of the property, a share, or monetary compensation (Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27).
Proprietary estoppel cases frequently arise in the context of family farms and family businesses, where a child has worked for years on the strength of a promise that they will inherit.
Executor and administration disputes
Not every will dispute is about the will. Sometimes the will is valid and its meaning is clear, but the executors or administrators are failing to do their job: delaying the administration, failing to account, selling estate assets at an undervalue, preferring some beneficiaries over others, or acting where they have a conflict of interest.
The remedies here are different. They include:
- applications to remove or substitute a personal representative under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985;
- applications for an account of the estate;
- claims for breach of fiduciary duty; and
- citations and similar procedural remedies under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules.
These disputes sit alongside, rather than within, the grounds for contesting a will. We cover them in a separate part of this hub.
Which ground applies to your situation?
Use the prompts below to identify the likely route. This is a starting point only – many real cases involve more than one ground, and you should take specialist advice before acting.
“The deceased had dementia when they made the will.”
Likely ground: lack of testamentary capacity, possibly alongside lack of knowledge and approval and, depending on circumstances, undue influence. Note that a dementia diagnosis does not automatically mean a lack of capacity: capacity is decision-specific and time-specific.
“The will was made shortly before death and leaves everything to a new carer or partner.”
Likely ground: lack of knowledge and approval (particularly if the new beneficiary was involved in preparing the will), undue influence, and lack of testamentary capacity if the testator was seriously ill. Suspicious circumstances are central.
“I think the signature on the will is not my parent’s.”
Likely ground: forgery. You will need handwriting expert evidence and evidence about the circumstances of the alleged execution.
“My sister/brother told my parent lies about me and I’ve been cut out of the will.”
Likely ground: fraudulent calumny (if the statements were dishonest) or undue influence (if the effect was coercion). If your sibling genuinely believed what they said, a fraudulent calumny claim will fail.
“The will was only witnessed by one person”
Likely ground: failure of formalities under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. A will that is not properly witnessed is invalid.
“A beneficiary, or the spouse or civil partner of a beneficiary, witnessed the will.”
This is not a formalities failure in the section 9 sense — the will remains valid. But under section 15 of the Wills Act 1837, the gift to that beneficiary will usually be void, unless the will was validly attested by two other witnesses whose signatures were sufficient without relying on the beneficiary or their spouse or civil partner. The rest of the will stands.
“The will says one thing but I know that’s not what the deceased meant.”
Consider: rectification (clerical error or failure to understand instructions) or construction (ambiguity). You have six months from the grant of representation to apply for rectification without permission.
“I was financially dependent on the deceased but the will leaves me very little, or nothing.”
Likely route: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim. The six-month deadline from the grant of representation is critical.
“I worked on the family farm/in the family business for years because I was promised I’d inherit it, and now I haven’t.”
Likely route: proprietary estoppel. You will need to evidence the assurance, your reliance on it and the detriment you suffered.
“The will is fine but the executor is refusing to do something/taking ages/hiding information.”
This is an executor or administration dispute, not a challenge to the will. Remedies include citations, removal applications and accounts.
Burden and standard of proof
The standard of proof across all grounds is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities. The burden, however, shifts depending on the ground.
| Ground | Who bears the burden |
|---|---|
| Due execution | The person propounding the will (but presumed from a regular attestation clause) |
| Testamentary capacity | The propounder, although a will rational on its face raises a presumption that shifts the evidential burden to the challenger |
| Knowledge and approval | The propounder, generally presumed from due execution and capacity, but the propounder must affirmatively prove it where suspicion is excited |
| Undue influence | The challenger, and the bar is high – the evidence must make coercion more probable than any other explanation. |
| Forgery / authenticity | The propounder bears the ultimate burden of proving that the will is genuine and duly executed once authenticity is properly in issue. The challenger must put forward evidence sufficient to raise the issue, and cogent evidence is required because forgery is a serious allegation. |
| Fraud / fraudulent calumny | The party alleging dishonest conduct must prove it on the balance of probabilities, with cogent evidence. |
| Formalities | The propounder, although presumed from a proper attestation clause |
| Rectification | The claimant, with cogent evidence of the testator’s actual instructions |
| Inheritance Act claim | The claimant, on eligibility and on the reasonableness of provision |
| Proprietary estoppel | The claimant, on each of assurance, reliance and detriment |
The leading statement on burden and standard in probate is Re Fuld (No 3) [1968] P 675.
What happens if a ground succeeds?
The outcome depends entirely on the route, which is one reason identifying the correct route matters so much.
- Validity challenge succeeds in full. The will is not admitted to probate, or the grant is revoked. The court then looks for the most recent earlier valid will. If there is one, it governs the estate. If there is not, the estate passes under the intestacy rules.
- Validity challenge succeeds in part. Under authorities such as Re Williams (Deceased), the court can refuse probate to specific words while admitting the rest of the will.
- Rectification succeeds. The court orders that the will be admitted to probate in a corrected form.
- Construction succeeds. The court declares the meaning of the will and it is administered accordingly.
- Inheritance Act 1975 claim succeeds. The court makes an order varying the distribution – a lump sum, periodical payments, a transfer of property, a life interest or settlement of property.
- Proprietary estoppel succeeds. The court grants a remedy that is sufficient to avoid the unconscionable result. That may be less than the full value of the promised property (Jennings v Rice; Guest v Guest).
In most cases, a successful outcome is achieved through negotiated settlement or mediation rather than a contested trial. A realistic appraisal of settlement should form part of any strategy from the outset.
Time limits by ground
Time limits are one of the most dangerous areas of contested probate. The rules differ by ground, and some are strict while others are discretionary. The table below is a summary only.
| Ground | Time limit |
|---|---|
| Validity challenge (before grant) | No statutory deadline, but a caveat must be entered to prevent the grant, and delay can damage the claim |
| Validity challenge (after grant) | No statutory deadline, but the grant must be revoked; delay and distribution of the estate create serious practical difficulties |
| Inheritance Act 1975 claim | Six months from the grant of representation (s.4 of the 1975 Act); extension is discretionary |
| Rectification | Six months from the grant of representation (s.20(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982); extension is discretionary |
| Fraud or forgery affecting validity | No specific statutory limitation period for bringing a probate claim to challenge the validity of a will. But delay, laches, acquiescence, evidential prejudice and distribution of the estate may defeat or seriously damage the claim in practice. |
| Separate fraud, trust or estate-administration claims | Limitation depends on the cause of action and the remedy sought. Sections 21 and 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 may be relevant, particularly for claims involving fraudulent breach of trust, concealment, or recovery of trust property from a trustee. |
| Proprietary estoppel | Governed by the Limitation Act 1980; generally 12 years where the claim is to an interest in land |
| Executor removal | No strict deadline, but delay is a relevant factor |
Even where there is no statutory limitation period, the equitable doctrines of laches and acquiescence can bar a probate claim brought after significant delay — particularly once the estate has been distributed, evidence has been lost, or third parties have relied on the grant (see Bowerman v Bowerman [2025] EWHC 2947 (Ch); Stephenson v Daley [2026] EWHC 53 (Ch). Do not assume that “no statutory deadline” means you have unlimited time to act.
If you are approaching any deadline, take advice immediately. A standstill agreement between the parties does not bind the court and cannot of itself extend a statutory time limit. The Court of Appeal in Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336 accepted that standstill agreements can still have a sensible role in 1975 Act disputes, but made clear that they should be in writing, include every relevant party, and that permission from the court will still be needed if proceedings are in fact issued after the six-month period has expired.
Evidence that supports each ground
Each ground calls for a different evidential package. The common sources are:
- The will drafter’s file. Usually obtained through a Larke v Nugus request to the solicitor who prepared the will. This includes instructions, attendance notes, drafts, correspondence and any capacity assessment.
- Medical records. GP records, hospital records, memory clinic records, care-home records and medication records. Almost always relevant in capacity cases.
- Previous wills. Changes from a long-standing pattern are probative across several grounds.
- Witness evidence. From family, friends, carers, neighbours and the attesting witnesses.
- Expert evidence. A retrospective capacity report from a psychiatrist or old-age psychiatrist in capacity cases; a forensic handwriting expert in forgery cases.
- Financial and digital evidence. Bank statements, care home invoices, emails, text messages and social media for dependency, coercion and deathbed contexts.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can I contest a will while the testator is still alive?
No. A will has no legal effect until the testator dies, so there is nothing to contest during their lifetime. Until death, the testator can change or revoke their will as often as they like, and no court in England and Wales will intervene in the terms of a will that has not yet come into operation.
A few related points are worth knowing:
- Time limits under the Inheritance Act 1975 and for rectification run from the grant of representation after death, not before. There is nothing to issue and nothing to protect until the testator has died.
- Concerns about capacity or undue influence during the testator’s lifetime are a different problem. If you are worried that an elderly or vulnerable relative is being pressured, or is making decisions they no longer have capacity to make, the route is not a will challenge. It may be a safeguarding referral to the local authority, an application to the Court of Protection, or a report to the Office of the Public Guardian if an attorney under a lasting power of attorney is acting improperly.
- You can preserve evidence now, even though you cannot litigate. If you anticipate a dispute after death, keeping contemporaneous notes, preserving messages and emails, and noting the names of carers, GPs and solicitors involved can be very valuable later. A solicitor’s file, once a will has been made, can be requested via a Larke v Nugus letter after death.
- Promises to inherit are slightly different. A claim in proprietary estoppel is based on an assurance made during the testator’s lifetime that was relied on to the claimant’s detriment. Such a claim is normally brought against the estate after death, but in rare cases where the promisor is still alive and has resiled from the promise in a way that causes immediate detriment, a claim can be brought during their lifetime (see Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210).
If you have concerns about a will that has not yet taken effect, the right step now is usually to take advice on the underlying issue – capacity, undue influence, or safeguarding.
Q: Is being treated unfairly by a will grounds to contest it?
No. Testamentary freedom is a foundational principle of the law of England and Wales. An adult of sound mind can in general leave their estate to whomever they choose and exclude whomever they choose. You need one of the recognised grounds on this page – usually either a validity ground or an Inheritance Act 1975 claim if you are an eligible applicant.
Q: Can I rely on more than one ground?
Yes, and in practice most validity claims plead more than one. Capacity and knowledge and approval are routinely pleaded together. Undue influence is often pleaded in the alternative. Be careful with fraud and forgery: because they involve allegations of dishonesty, they should not be pleaded without proper evidential foundation.
Q: Can I bring an Inheritance Act claim and challenge the validity of the Will at the same time?
Yes. The two are conceptually separate but can be pursued in the alternative. The pleading usually explains that if the will is valid, the claimant seeks provision under the 1975 Act, and if it is not, they take under the earlier will or intestacy.
Q: What if the deceased forgot to include me?
Forgetting is not in itself a ground of challenge, but it may support a knowledge and approval claim, a rectification claim if there was a clerical error, or an Inheritance Act 1975 claim if you are an eligible applicant who has not been reasonably provided for.
Q: Is there a “common sense” ground if the will just seems wrong?
No. The courts of England and Wales have no general jurisdiction to rewrite a will they consider unfair. Your concern has to fit one of the recognised routes on this page – validity, operative effect, rectification or construction, financial provision under the 1975 Act, or an equitable claim such as proprietary estoppel. If none of them applies, the will stands, however unfair it may feel. That is why the single most useful question to ask at the outset is: which of these routes does my concern actually fit?
Q: Can a stepchild or cohabitant contest a will?
A stepchild who was treated as a child of the family, and a cohabitant of at least two years, can bring an Inheritance Act 1975 claim. Either may also challenge validity if they have a sufficient probate interest – for example, because they benefit under an earlier will, or because the validity dispute otherwise affects their legal interest in the estate.
Q: Do I have to wait until probate has been granted to contest the will?
No – and often you should not. Before a grant is issued, you can enter a caveat through the Probate Registry to prevent the grant being made while matters are investigated. GOV.UK publishes guidance on stopping a probate application. A caveat should not be entered casually and can have costs consequences if misused, so do seek professional legal advice from a will disputes solicitor.
Q: Are the Law Commission’s 2025 proposals the law now?
No. The Law Commission’s report Modernising Wills Law was published in May 2025 and includes recommendations on capacity, undue influence, electronic wills and formalities. None of those recommendations are the law in England and Wales unless and until Parliament enacts them.
Next steps
Contested probate is a technical, evidence-heavy and time-limited area of law. This guide is designed to help you identify the right route and the right questions to ask, but it is not a substitute for advice on your specific facts. If you think any of the grounds on this page may apply, or even if you are just unsure whether you might have a claim, take advice from a specialist contentious probate (will disputes) solicitor as soon as possible.
