Contesting a will: who can claim and the six-month deadline

Two different challenges

People use the phrase contesting a will to cover two claims that have almost nothing in common.

The first says the will should never have taken effect: it was not executed properly, the person did not have the mental capacity to make it, they did not understand it, or somebody coerced them. If that succeeds, the will falls away and an earlier will applies, or the intestacy rules do.

The second accepts the will completely and says it failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. The court is asked to award something out of the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The will stands; the distribution changes.

Working out which claim is available is the first piece of advice anybody needs, because the evidence, the claimants and the deadlines are entirely different.

Challenging whether the will is valid

Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 sets out what a valid will requires: it must be in writing, signed by the person making it with the intention of giving effect to it, and that signature must be made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses who are both there at the same time, each of whom then signs in the presence of the person making the will.

Failures are more common in homemade and online wills than people expect. Witnesses who signed in another room, witnesses who signed on different occasions, a signature added after the witnesses left. Where a will was professionally prepared and the attestation clause records the formalities, the court presumes due execution, and displacing that presumption takes strong evidence.

One trap leaves the will standing and catches the family instead: under section 15 of the Act, a gift to a witness or to a witness's husband or wife is void. The will stands and that one gift disappears.

Capacity, knowledge and approval

The test for testamentary capacity comes from Banks v Goodfellow. The person making the will has to understand that they are making a will and what it does, know in general terms what they own, appreciate who has a claim on their attention, and be free of any disorder of mind that perverts their sense of right.

Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific. A diagnosis of dementia does not by itself mean somebody lacked capacity to make a will, and somebody with no diagnosis may still have lacked it on the day. What usually decides these cases is contemporaneous evidence: the solicitor's attendance note, the medical records around the date, and whether a doctor was asked to witness or assess at the time.

Knowledge and approval is a separate requirement. Even with capacity, the person must have known and approved the contents. It becomes live where somebody who benefits was closely involved in preparing the will, where the person was blind or unable to read, or where the terms are hard to reconcile with anything they had previously said.

Undue influence and forgery

Undue influence in the law of wills means coercion. Persuasion, argument, appeals to affection and even pressure all fall short; the will has to be shown to be the product of a will overborne.

There is no presumption of undue influence in testamentary cases, which is where many claims fail. In lifetime gifts a relationship of trust can raise a presumption the recipient has to rebut. With a will, the person alleging coercion has to prove it, and courts have repeatedly said the allegation is a serious one that should not be pleaded on suspicion alone.

Circumstances that support a claim include physical or emotional dependency, isolation from other family members, a sudden change late in life that benefits the person providing care, and secrecy about the will's preparation. Standing alone, none of them is enough.

Fraud and forgery are pleaded less often and require expert handwriting evidence, which is expensive and rarely conclusive on its own.

Claiming reasonable provision

The 1975 Act allows the court to order provision out of an estate where a will, or the intestacy rules, failed to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant. Six categories of person can apply: the spouse or civil partner; a former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried or formed a new civil partnership; anybody who lived with the deceased as a couple for at least two years ending with the death; a child of the deceased; anybody treated by the deceased as a child of the family; and anybody who was being maintained, wholly or partly, by the deceased immediately before the death.

The standard differs by category. A surviving spouse or civil partner is entitled to what is reasonable in all the circumstances whether or not it is required for maintenance. Everybody else is limited to what is reasonable for their maintenance, which means the resources they need to live at an appropriate standard, and not a share of the estate for its own sake.

The court weighs the applicant's financial resources and needs, the same for every beneficiary, any obligations the deceased had towards them, the size and nature of the estate, any disability, and anything else relevant, including how the deceased behaved. An adult child in good health and full-time work faces a much harder claim than a dependent one.

The evidence that decides these cases

Validity claims turn on documents created at the time, and the single most valuable one is the will file of the firm that drafted it. That file usually holds the attendance notes recording who attended, who did the talking, what instructions were given and what questions were asked about capacity. A beneficiary can obtain it: where a claim is contemplated, the file is disclosable, and the professional guidance expects a firm to release it on a proper request.

Medical records around the date of the will matter almost as much. GP notes, hospital discharge summaries and any cognitive assessment carried out near the time carry more weight than a doctor's opinion formed years afterwards. Where the will was prepared while somebody was seriously ill, the records often settle the question in one direction or the other.

For a claim about provision, the evidence is financial. The court is comparing the applicant's resources and needs against those of everybody else who benefits, so bank statements, income figures, housing costs, earning capacity and any disability all have to be set out. Applicants routinely underestimate how closely their own finances will be examined.

Three practical steps are worth taking early. Obtain a copy of the will and the grant from the probate records, which anybody can do. Write to the executors asking for an estate account and confirmation of whether any distribution has been made. And put the executors on notice in writing that a claim is contemplated, because distributing an estate after notice of a claim exposes them personally.

The deadlines that decide everything

A 1975 Act claim must be brought within six months of the date the grant of representation is first taken out. The court can permit a late application, and it is a discretion exercised against a set of factors including how promptly the applicant acted and whether the estate has already been distributed.

That six months runs from the grant, not from the death or from the point somebody learned what the will said. Checking the probate records for whether a grant has issued is the first practical step in any potential claim.

Validity claims have no equivalent fixed limit, although delay damages them: evidence fades, witnesses die, and an estate that has been distributed is far harder to unwind. Where a beneficiary has received money and spent it, a successful claimant may recover nothing.

Caveats and stopping a grant

A caveat is an entry that prevents a grant of probate being issued without notice to the person who entered it. It lasts six months, can be renewed, and costs a modest fee.

It buys time to investigate a validity concern. It is a blunt instrument: the executor can issue a warning requiring the caveator to state their interest, and a caveat entered without proper grounds can attract a costs order. It also has no application to a 1975 Act claim, because that claim depends on the grant having been issued.

What it costs and who pays

The general rule in civil litigation is that the losing party pays the winner's costs. Two older exceptions survive in probate cases: where the testator's own conduct caused the litigation, and where the circumstances reasonably called for an investigation. Both are applied narrowly, and a claimant should plan on the general rule.

Because costs are capable of consuming a modest estate, the court expects parties to attempt mediation, and most claims settle before trial. Early advice on the strength of a claim is usually worth more than the claim itself.

Frequently asked questions

How long do I have to contest a will?

For a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, six months from the date the grant of representation is first taken out. The court can allow a late claim but does not have to, and it weighs how promptly you acted and whether the estate has been distributed. A claim that the will itself is invalid has no fixed statutory deadline, although delay weakens it and an estate that has already been paid out is much harder to recover.

Can I challenge a will just because it is unfair?

Unfairness on its own is not a ground. A person is free to leave their estate as they choose, and the court will not rewrite a will because the division looks harsh. You need either a defect in the will itself, such as improper execution, lack of capacity or coercion, or standing to claim reasonable financial provision under the 1975 Act as a spouse, cohabitant of two years, child, person treated as a child of the family, or dependant.

What is a caveat and should I enter one?

A caveat stops a grant of probate being issued without notice to you. It lasts six months, can be renewed and buys time to investigate concerns about a will's validity. It is not appropriate where your complaint is that the will did not provide for you, because a 1975 Act claim needs the grant to have been issued. Entering a caveat without proper grounds can lead to a costs order against you, so take advice before doing it.

Does a diagnosis of dementia mean a will is invalid?

No. Capacity is judged at the moment the will was made and in relation to that specific decision, so somebody with a dementia diagnosis may still have had the capacity to make a will, particularly a straightforward one. What tends to decide these cases is the evidence from the time: the solicitor's attendance notes, the medical records around the date, and whether a medical practitioner was asked to assess or witness.

Who pays the legal costs of contesting a will?

Usually the losing party pays the winner's costs, as in other civil claims. Two exceptions can apply in probate disputes: where the person who made the will caused the litigation through their own conduct, and where the circumstances reasonably called for an investigation. Both are applied narrowly. Because costs can exceed what is being argued over in a modest estate, the court expects parties to try mediation.

Can I claim if I was living with the deceased but we never married?

Yes, if you lived with them as a couple in the same household for at least the two years ending with the death. You can also claim as a dependant if they were maintaining you wholly or partly immediately before they died. The standard is what is reasonable for your maintenance, so the court looks at your resources and needs, and does not award a share of the estate for its own sake. The six-month deadline from the grant applies.

Sources & further reading

• Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
• Wills Act 1837
• GOV.UK: search probate records and find a will
• GOV.UK: applying for probate

This article is general information, not legal advice. The law changes and depends on your circumstances — always take advice on your specific situation before acting. Last reviewed 21 September 2026. AD Solicitors Limited is a recognised body regulated by the SRA (no. 8011228).