Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to articles

Grounds for Contesting a Will in the UK (2026 Guide)

· 34 min

Note: The following scenario is fictional and used for illustration.

When Michael's father died, the will left the entire £480,000 estate—including the family home—to his father's carer of just 18 months. Michael and his two sisters, who'd cared for their father for years before his dementia diagnosis, received nothing. The will had been signed just three months before his death, when his GP's notes documented "moderate to severe cognitive impairment." Michael knew something was wrong, but didn't know if the law agreed.

In England and Wales, around 10,000 people dispute a will every year, but only 195 cases reached court in 2021-22. The vast majority settle out of court once the legal grounds are understood and evidence is assessed. Challenging a will isn't about overturning someone's final wishes—it's about ensuring those wishes were genuinely theirs, made with full mental capacity, free from pressure, and properly executed under UK law.

This guide explains the six legal grounds for contesting a will in the UK, what evidence you need for each, and how to assess whether your concerns have legal merit.

Table of Contents

Understanding Will Validity in UK Law

When a will is properly signed and witnessed, UK law presumes it's valid. The burden falls on anyone challenging the will to raise "real doubt" about its validity. Only then does the burden shift back to those defending the will to prove it was properly made.

Will challenges fall into two distinct categories. Validity challenges argue the will is technically invalid due to lack of capacity, undue influence, fraud, improper execution, lack of knowledge and approval, or fraudulent calumny. These challenges, if successful, set aside the entire will. Inheritance Act 1975 claims are different—they accept the will is valid but argue it fails to provide reasonable financial provision for eligible dependents.

If a will is declared invalid, the estate doesn't simply pass to those who challenge it. Instead, the estate is distributed according to a previous valid will if one exists. If there's no earlier will, the intestacy rules determine who inherits—typically the spouse receives the first £270,000 plus personal belongings and half the remainder, with children splitting the other half.

Sarah's father left his entire £320,000 estate to his partner of 18 months, excluding Sarah and her brother entirely. The will was signed six weeks before his death when medical records showed advanced Alzheimer's. Sarah challenged on capacity grounds with expert medical evidence. The court set aside the will, and the estate passed under an earlier will that divided everything equally between the children.

Even without strict time limits for capacity or fraud challenges, you must act quickly. Evidence deteriorates—medical professionals retire, witnesses forget details, and crucially, estates may be distributed to beneficiaries who then spend the money. Once assets are gone, recovering them becomes far more difficult.

The Law Commission's 2025 report on modernising wills law recommends significant reforms, including aligning the testamentary capacity test with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and making undue influence easier to prove. While these reforms aren't yet law, they demonstrate that current legal tests—some dating from 1870—are being actively reviewed.

Ground 1: Lack of Testamentary Capacity (Banks v Goodfellow Test)

The most common successful ground for challenging a will is lack of testamentary capacity—the mental capacity required to make a valid will. The test remains that established in Banks v Goodfellow (1870), confirmed as recently as Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch).

The testator must meet four requirements at the time they sign the will. First, they must understand the nature of making a will and its effect—that they're creating a legal document determining who inherits their property after death. Second, they must understand the extent of property they're disposing of—not necessarily knowing every asset to the penny, but having a general understanding of their estate's value and contents.

Third, they must comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect. This means understanding who has a moral or legal claim on their estate—typically spouse, children, and other close family members. They don't have to benefit these people, but they must be able to consider them.

Fourth, they must have no disorder of the mind that perverts their sense of right or prevents rational judgment. Crucially, this doesn't mean any mental disorder automatically invalidates a will—it must be shown that the specific disorder affected their decision-making about the will.

A diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer's, stroke, brain injury, or severe depression doesn't automatically prove lack of capacity. Capacity can fluctuate—people may have "lucid intervals" where they regain sufficient understanding. The question is whether the condition prevented them meeting the four Banks v Goodfellow criteria at the specific time they signed the will.

When a solicitor prepares a will for an elderly or seriously ill client, the "Golden Rule" suggests they should arrange a medical capacity assessment. The absence of this assessment, when circumstances suggest it should have been obtained, raises suspicion about whether capacity existed.

David, 78, had vascular dementia diagnosis six months before signing his will. Medical records showed he couldn't recall how many children he had or their names. The will excluded his son entirely for no stated reason. His daughter challenged with expert medical evidence. A consultant psychiatrist reviewed the GP records and testified that David couldn't have met the third Banks v Goodfellow test—comprehending and appreciating the claims of his children. The will was set aside, and the estate passed under intestacy, giving both children equal shares.

To challenge on capacity grounds, you must raise "real doubt"—sufficient evidence to question whether capacity existed. Relevant evidence includes medical records showing dementia or mental illness around the time the will was signed, GP attendance notes or capacity assessments, expert medical opinion retrospectively assessing whether the testator could meet the four-part test, witness statements from family or carers about the testator's mental state, and evidence the will is out of character or irrational.

The burden initially falls on you to raise this doubt. Once you do, the burden shifts to those defending the will to prove capacity did exist. They might produce evidence of lucid intervals, the solicitor's file notes showing the testator understood the will's effect, or expert medical opinion that the condition wasn't severe enough to prevent testamentary capacity.

Ground 2: Undue Influence and Coercion

Undue influence means someone exerted pressure, coercion, or manipulation to override the testator's free will, causing them to make or change their will in a way that benefits the influencer. This differs fundamentally from persuasion—reminding an elderly parent "I've cared for you for years" isn't undue influence. The law requires coercion: threats, isolation from family, physical or emotional abuse, or exploiting severe vulnerability.

Unlike lifetime gifts, there's no presumption of undue influence in testamentary dispositions. You must prove it on the balance of probabilities—a high burden because undue influence typically happens behind closed doors with no independent witnesses.

The Law Commission's 2025 wills reform recommendations acknowledge this difficulty. They recommend courts should be able to infer undue influence where evidence provides "reasonable grounds to suspect it." This reform isn't yet law, but demonstrates the current test is widely recognized as too restrictive.

Relevant evidence includes showing the testator was isolated from family members who would normally benefit, the beneficiary controlled access to the testator and accompanied them to the solicitor, the will is radically different from previous wills or expressed intentions, the testator was frail, dependent, or vulnerable, and witness statements from family or carers about the beneficiary's controlling behavior.

Margaret, 82, lived with her nephew James after a fall. James accompanied her to the solicitor, insisted on being present during instructions, and told the solicitor "Auntie wants to leave everything to me—her other relatives never visit." Her previous will split the estate equally among four nieces and nephews. Margaret's friend testified James prevented her visiting Margaret and screened all phone calls. The court found James had isolated Margaret and controlled access to legal advice. The will was set aside for undue influence.

The Law Society's guidance on vulnerable clients requires solicitors to see testators alone to confirm instructions are free from undue influence. A solicitor's file note documenting that the testator gave instructions privately, without the beneficiary present, can be powerful evidence against an undue influence claim.

Undue influence requires coercion, not just relationship dynamics. An adult child caring for an elderly parent and reminding them of sacrifices made isn't automatically undue influence—unless accompanied by threats, isolation, or exploiting severe vulnerability. Persuasion and influence are permitted; crossing into coercion and overriding free will is not.

Research indicates undue influence is the most commonly cited ground for challenging wills, but paradoxically has the lowest success rate. The evidential difficulty—proving what happened in private between deceased and influencer—means many claims settle rather than go to trial, or fail for lack of sufficient proof.

Ground 3: Lack of Knowledge and Approval

Even if a testator has capacity, they must have known and approved the contents of their will. This is a distinct ground—you can have mental capacity but still not understand what a specific will says or what effect it will have.

When a will is properly executed and the testator had capacity, knowledge and approval is presumed. However, certain circumstances rebut this presumption and require those defending the will to provide affirmative proof that the testator knew and approved the contents.

The Barry v Butlin (1838) principle states that when a will is prepared by or on behalf of someone who takes a substantial benefit under it, this is "sufficient to excite the suspicions of the court." The presumption is rebutted, and the beneficiary must prove the testator knew and approved.

Other circumstances rebutting the presumption include when the testator was blind, illiterate, or didn't speak English, when the will was read or signed in circumstances raising doubt, or when there are suspicious circumstances around how the will was prepared or executed.

The Gill v Woodall (2011) two-part test asks: Did the testator understand what was in the will when they signed it? Did they understand what its effect would be? Both questions must be answered affirmatively for knowledge and approval to exist.

Priya, 70, spoke limited English. Her son prepared a will and arranged for a solicitor to witness the signature. The will left the entire estate to the son, excluding Priya's daughter. The solicitor's file note said "Priya seemed confused about contents. I explained in English but not sure she understood." No interpreter was present. The daughter challenged, and because the son had prepared the will naming himself as main beneficiary, the court required affirmative proof Priya knew and approved. The son couldn't provide it. The will was set aside.

Lack of knowledge and approval often overlaps with lack of capacity but they're legally distinct. Someone with mild dementia might still have testamentary capacity—they understand they're making a will, know their assets, and recognize their family. But they might lack knowledge and approval if they signed without reading the will, didn't understand a specific provision, or weren't given adequate explanation of the will's effect.

If the testator was deaf or hard of hearing and no interpreter was present, if they signed without their reading glasses when the will contained complex provisions, or if the will-drafter's notes suggest the testator was rushed or confused, these circumstances may rebut the presumption and require proof of knowledge and approval.

Ground 4: Improper Execution Under the Wills Act 1837

A will must comply with strict execution requirements under Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837. Failure to meet these technical requirements renders the will invalid, regardless of the testator's capacity or intentions.

The statutory requirements are precise. The will must be in writing. It must be signed by the testator, or by someone else in the testator's presence and at their direction. The testator must intend by their signature to give effect to the will. The signature must be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time. Each witness must attest and sign the will in the presence of the testator, though not necessarily in the presence of each other.

Common execution failures include having only one witness or none at all, witnesses not seeing the testator sign or the testator not acknowledging their signature to the witnesses, a witness signing after leaving the room or later by post, and a beneficiary or beneficiary's spouse acting as witness.

Section 15 of the Wills Act 1837 creates a specific rule for beneficiary witnesses. If a beneficiary or their spouse acts as a witness, the will remains valid but that specific beneficiary's gift becomes void. They inherit nothing, but the rest of the will stands.

Robert's will left £150,000 to his friend Emma. Emma acted as one of two witnesses to the will. The will is technically valid—it was properly signed and witnessed by two people. However, under Section 15, Emma's £150,000 gift is void. She inherits nothing. The rest of the will stands, but Emma is effectively excluded. If Emma was one of only two witnesses and her gift is void, you may also lose her as a valid witness, potentially invalidating the entire will for lack of proper attestation.

Video witnessing was temporarily permitted from 2020-2024 under The Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020. Wills made during this period using video witnessing remain valid if the specific procedures were followed correctly. However, these provisions have now expired for new wills—video witnessing is no longer permitted unless new legislation is enacted.

Linda signed her will in her bedroom. Her solicitor witnessed via video link from his office, and Linda's neighbor witnessed in person. If this occurred between 2020-2024 and followed the correct procedures, the will is valid. If it occurred after the provisions expired, the will is invalid for improper execution.

Any alterations to a will after execution must be re-executed—signed and witnessed again—or they're invalid. You can't simply cross out a gift or add a new beneficiary by writing on the will. Codicils—amendments to wills—must be executed with the same formality as the will itself.

Many DIY wills fail on execution technicalities. Witnessing is the most common error—people don't understand that both witnesses must be present at the same time when the testator signs or acknowledges their signature, or they use beneficiaries as witnesses without realizing the gift becomes void.

Ground 5: Fraud and Forgery

Fraud and forgery are the most serious grounds for challenging a will because they involve deliberate deception or criminality. If proven, they often result in criminal prosecution as well as civil invalidity.

Fraud means the testator was deliberately deceived by false information when making the will, and the deception affected the will's contents. A beneficiary tells the testator "Your daughter stole £50,000 from you" when this is completely false, causing the testator to exclude the daughter. That's fraud. It differs from fraudulent calumny in scope—fraud can relate to any false representation affecting the will, while fraudulent calumny specifically involves poisoning the testator's mind against a beneficiary.

Forgery means the will or the testator's signature is not genuine. The signature was forged after the testator's death, the entire will was fabricated, or the will was signed but the testator lacked the mental or physical capacity to form the intention to sign.

The burden of proof for fraud is higher than for other challenges because fraud is a criminal offense. Courts require "compelling evidence" and a "higher degree of probability" than the usual civil standard of balance of probabilities.

Relevant evidence includes handwriting expert analysis comparing the signature to known samples from the testator, medical evidence the testator couldn't physically sign when the will was dated—for example, they were hospitalized, unconscious, or paralyzed, witness testimony that the will was never signed or was signed in different circumstances than alleged, and evidence of motive and opportunity for the person who allegedly committed the forgery.

Thomas's will, dated 12 March 2022, left his £300,000 estate to his nephew Gary. Thomas's GP records showed he was in hospital unconscious on 12 March 2022. A handwriting expert confirmed the signature didn't match Thomas's known signature samples from bank documents and previous wills. The will was declared forged. Gary faced criminal investigation, and the estate passed under an earlier will naming Thomas's children as beneficiaries.

Proving fraud or forgery requires compelling evidence—suspicion alone isn't enough. Courts require more than balance of probabilities due to the seriousness of the allegation. You'll likely need expert evidence from handwriting analysts, medical evidence showing physical or mental impossibility of signing, and contemporaneous witnesses who can testify to what actually occurred.

In cases involving disputed signatures, forensic document examiners analyze pen pressure, writing flow, letter formation, and consistency with known samples. In cases involving suspicious circumstances, investigators examine who had access to the testator, who would benefit from a fraudulent will, and whether there's evidence of previous dishonesty.

Ground 6: Fraudulent Calumny (Poisoning the Testator's Mind)

Fraudulent calumny is a specialized ground established in Re Edwards (2007): "If A poisons the testator's mind against B, who would otherwise be a natural beneficiary, by casting dishonest aspersions on B's character, then the will is liable to be set aside."

To prove fraudulent calumny, you must establish four elements. Someone made a false representation to the testator about the excluded beneficiary. They knew the representation was false or were reckless as to its truth. They intended the testator to alter the beneficiary's inheritance or exclude them. The false representation caused the exclusion—there's no other explanation for the disinheritance.

Fraudulent calumny differs fundamentally from undue influence. Undue influence involves coercion overriding the testator's free will—they make the will under pressure. Fraudulent calumny involves the testator exercising free will, but their perception of the beneficiary has been poisoned by lies. The testator makes the will voluntarily, but based on deliberately false information.

In Christodoulides v Marcou (2017) EWHC 2632 (Ch), a daughter told lies to her mother that her sister had stolen substantial sums and already received her inheritance—completely false allegations. The mother excluded the sister from her will as a result. After eight days of evidence, the court found fraudulent calumny and set aside the will.

Whittle v Whittle (2022) EWHC 925 (Ch) involved a daughter who told deliberate falsehoods to her father to cause him to cut her brother out of his will. The court found "forceful and repeated deliberate falsehoods"—the will was set aside, and letters of administration were granted to the brother to administer the estate under intestacy rules.

Helen told her uncle Richard that his son Mark had said "I can't wait for the old man to die so I can get the money." Richard was devastated and changed his will to exclude Mark entirely. After Richard's death, Mark produced text messages to Helen proving he never said this—Helen had fabricated the quote entirely. Mark challenged successfully for fraudulent calumny, providing the texts as proof Helen knew the statement was false.

Like undue influence, fraudulent calumny is difficult to prove because it usually happens in private. The testator—the key witness who could confirm or deny the false representations—is now dead. You need compelling evidence that the false statements were made, that the person making them knew they were false, and that these lies caused the exclusion.

If someone genuinely believed the negative things they told the testator, even if factually wrong, that's not fraudulent calumny—they must have known it was false or not cared whether it was true. There must also be no other explanation for the disinheritance. If the testator had independent reasons to exclude the beneficiary, fraudulent calumny won't succeed even if lies were told.

Time Limits for Contesting a Will in the UK

The time limits for contesting a will depend on which ground you're challenging under and which type of claim you're bringing. Understanding these distinctions is crucial to preserving your rights.

For validity challenges—lack of capacity, undue influence, fraud, improper execution, lack of knowledge and approval, or fraudulent calumny—there's no fixed statutory deadline. The Limitation Act 1980 Section 22 provides 12 years for claims to recover personal estate of the deceased. However, courts may refuse relief if your delay is unreasonable under the laches doctrine.

Despite the lack of a strict deadline, you must act urgently. Evidence deteriorates rapidly—medical professionals retire, witnesses die or forget crucial details, and most critically, the estate may be distributed to beneficiaries who spend the inheritance. Recovering assets after distribution is extremely difficult, and you may be left pursuing personal claims against beneficiaries who no longer have the money.

Inheritance Act 1975 claims are different. These aren't validity challenges—they accept the will is valid but argue it fails to make reasonable financial provision for eligible dependents. The deadline is strict: 6 months from the grant of probate or letters of administration. Court extensions are rare and entirely discretionary.

Amanda suspected her mother's will lacked capacity due to dementia. She waited 18 months after probate was granted before challenging. By then, the mother's GP had retired and moved abroad, medical records were difficult to obtain, and witnesses had faded memories. The court still heard the challenge—there's no strict deadline for capacity challenges. But the evidential difficulties meant Amanda lost. The lesson: act immediately.

Ben wanted to bring an Inheritance Act 1975 claim as an excluded adult son who was financially dependent on his father. Probate was granted on 15 March 2024. Ben had until 15 September 2024 to issue his claim—exactly 6 months. He missed the deadline and the court refused an extension. His claim was time-barred despite having merit.

A probate caveat lasts 6 months initially and can be extended for further 6-month periods. You can enter a caveat using Form PA8A for just £3 to prevent probate being granted while you investigate. This is a protective measure that doesn't require you to have decided whether to challenge—it simply preserves your position.

Don't confuse the 6-month Inheritance Act deadline with validity challenges. If you think the will is invalid due to lack of capacity, fraud, or other grounds, there's no 6-month deadline—but you should still act urgently. If you want to claim reasonable financial provision as a dependent, the 6-month deadline from probate is strict and usually not extended.

Most will challenges settle within 12-18 months through negotiation or mediation, avoiding trial entirely. But you must commence the process early to allow time for evidence gathering, expert reports, negotiations, and if necessary, court proceedings.

How to Challenge a Will: The Probate Caveat Process

A probate caveat is a formal notice lodged with the Probate Registry preventing a grant of probate from being issued. It gives you time to investigate whether to pursue a challenge without the risk of the estate being distributed.

Enter a caveat as soon as you suspect a will may be invalid—ideally before probate is granted. Once probate is granted, challenging becomes harder because the will has received judicial approval and the estate may already be in the process of distribution.

To enter a caveat, complete Form PA8A available on GOV.UK, pay the £3 fee by cheque payable to 'HM Courts and Tribunals Service', and send it to HMCTS Probate. You don't need the death certificate to enter a caveat—you can amend details later if necessary.

The caveat stops all probate applications on the estate for 6 months. If the executor wants to proceed, they must issue a "warning" against your caveat—essentially challenging your right to prevent probate.

When you receive a warning, you have 14 days to respond, including weekends and bank holidays. Your options are to enter an appearance if you have "contrary interest"—for example, you believe you'd benefit under intestacy or an earlier will. This makes the caveat permanent. Issue a summons if you want to challenge validity but don't have contrary interest—for example, you're protecting the estate from invalid distribution but won't personally benefit. Remove the caveat if you've investigated and decided not to challenge.

If you don't respond within 14 days, the executor can apply to remove your caveat and proceed with probate.

Claire's father died leaving his entire estate to his partner of 2 years. Claire suspected undue influence. She entered a caveat on 10 January before probate was granted—cost £3. The partner issued a warning on 25 January. Claire had until 8 February to respond. She entered an appearance, citing that she would benefit under intestacy as the daughter if the will was invalid. The caveat became permanent. Claire and the partner negotiated a settlement—the partner received 50% of the estate, Claire and her siblings 50%—avoiding trial and saving approximately £40,000 in legal costs.

If you need more time to investigate, you can extend the caveat for another 6 months using Form PA8B, which costs £3. You can only apply for an extension in the last month before the caveat expires.

Enter a caveat even if you're unsure about challenging—it's cheap, buys time, and prevents distribution while you gather evidence and seek legal advice. However, be aware that entering a caveat can lead to legal costs if the executor challenges it and you can't justify your reasons. Try to reach agreement with the executor first if possible, but if you genuinely suspect invalidity and they won't engage, a caveat is essential.

After entering a caveat, instruct a contentious probate solicitor to assess your evidence, gather medical records or expert reports, attempt negotiation or mediation with the executor, and if settlement fails, issue court proceedings before the caveat expires.

Inheritance Act 1975 Claims vs. Validity Challenges

It's crucial to understand the difference between challenging a will's validity and claiming reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975. They're separate legal routes with different requirements and outcomes.

A validity challenge argues the will is invalid due to capacity, fraud, undue influence, execution failure, lack of knowledge and approval, or fraudulent calumny. If successful, the will is set aside entirely and the estate passes under a previous will or intestacy rules.

An Inheritance Act 1975 claim accepts the will is valid but argues it fails to make "reasonable financial provision" for an eligible claimant. If successful, the court varies the will to provide for the claimant, but the will otherwise stands.

Only certain categories can claim under the Inheritance Act 1975: spouse or civil partner, former spouse or civil partner who hasn't remarried, cohabitant who lived with deceased as spouse for 2+ years before death, child of the deceased at any age including adult children, person treated as child of the deceased, and person financially maintained by deceased immediately before death.

What counts as "reasonable financial provision" depends on who's claiming. For spouses and civil partners, it's whatever is reasonable in all circumstances—a higher standard similar to divorce settlements. For all others, it's what is required for maintenance—a lower standard covering day-to-day living expenses, not luxury or full inheritance.

The court considers multiple factors: the claimant's financial needs and resources, the beneficiaries' needs and resources, the size of the estate, the deceased's obligations to the claimant, any disability affecting the claimant, the length and nature of any estrangement, and importantly, the deceased's reasons for excluding or limiting provision for the claimant.

Ilott v Mitson (2017) UKSC 17 is the leading case. An adult daughter estranged from her mother for 26 years brought a claim when the mother left her entire £486,000 estate to charities, excluding the daughter. Initially awarded £50,000, this was increased to £143,000 on appeal, then reduced back to £50,000 by the Supreme Court. The court balanced the daughter's significant financial needs against the mother's testamentary freedom and deliberate decision to exclude her.

Tom's father left his entire estate to Tom's brother, excluding Tom. The father had capacity, there was no undue influence—the will is valid. But Tom was severely disabled, financially dependent on his father, and the father had always supported him during life. Tom brings an Inheritance Act claim for reasonable provision. The court awards Tom a £200,000 lump sum from the £600,000 estate to cover care and housing needs, applying the maintenance standard.

You can bring both types of claim simultaneously or in the alternative. Challenge validity as your primary claim, and if that fails, fall back on an Inheritance Act claim for reasonable provision. However, remember the Inheritance Act has a strict 6-month deadline from probate, so you must issue both claims within that window if you want to preserve both options.

Inheritance Act claims don't set aside the will—they vary it to provide for you. If you succeed, you'll receive reasonable maintenance, not necessarily a full share of the estate. Also, only eligible categories can claim—distant relatives, friends, and unmarried partners who didn't cohabit for 2 years cannot bring Inheritance Act claims, though they could potentially challenge validity on other grounds if they have standing.

Alternatives to Court: Mediation and Dispute Resolution

Contested probate trials are expensive, lengthy, and emotionally draining. Mediation offers a faster, cheaper, and less adversarial alternative that's increasingly favoured by courts.

Typical contested probate trials cost £10,000-£100,000+ in legal fees depending on complexity, expert evidence required, and whether the case reaches trial. Mediation typically costs under £5,000 total for both parties. Trial takes 18+ months from challenge to judgment. Mediation resolves in weeks or months. Court proceedings are public. Mediation is confidential. Judges impose decisions. Parties control the outcome through negotiation.

From October 2024, amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules mean courts can now penalise parties who unreasonably refuse to engage in alternative dispute resolution. In Conway v Conway (2024), the successful defendants had unreasonably refused mediation during the dispute. The court reduced their recoverable costs by 25% as a penalty—they won but still lost money.

In mediation, both parties and their solicitors attend with a neutral mediator. Each side presents their case and evidence. The mediator facilitates negotiation, often using "shuttle mediation" where parties remain in separate rooms and the mediator moves between them. If settlement is reached, terms are documented and binding. If no settlement, parties can still proceed to court—mediation is "without prejudice" and can't be used as evidence.

Mediation works best when both parties are willing to negotiate in good faith, evidence on validity grounds is unclear so neither side has a guaranteed win, costs of trial would consume a significant portion of the estate, and family relationships are salvageable or parties want to minimize conflict.

Mediation may not work when there's clear fraud or forgery requiring criminal investigation, one party refuses to engage or negotiates in bad faith, or a fundamental legal point requires court determination.

Three siblings disputed their father's will on capacity grounds with unsigned changes added after execution. Estimated legal costs for trial: £60,000 total. Estate value: £250,000. They attended mediation costing £3,500 total. They settled on a compromise: the will stood, but the estate was divided 40/30/30 instead of the 70/15/15 specified in the will. They saved £56,500 in legal fees and 18 months of litigation, and preserved their sibling relationship.

Around 10,000 will disputes occur annually, but only 195 reach court. The vast majority settle through negotiation or mediation, demonstrating that most cases can be resolved without trial once parties understand the evidence and legal merits.

Mediation isn't admitting your case is weak—it's pragmatic risk management. Even if you're confident in your grounds, trial is expensive, uncertain, and time-consuming. Mediating doesn't prevent you going to court if settlement fails, but refusing to mediate may result in costs penalties even if you ultimately win at trial.

Frequently Asked Questions: Contesting a Will

Q: What are the main grounds for contesting a will in the UK?

A: The six main grounds are: lack of testamentary capacity (testator didn't have mental capacity to make the will), undue influence (coercion or pressure), lack of knowledge and approval (testator didn't understand or approve the contents), improper execution (will wasn't signed and witnessed correctly), fraud or forgery (will or signature is not genuine), and fraudulent calumny (someone poisoned the testator's mind against a beneficiary with deliberate lies).

Q: What is testamentary capacity and how is it tested?

A: Testamentary capacity means the mental capacity required to make a valid will. Under the Banks v Goodfellow test (1870), the testator must: understand the nature of making a will and its effect, understand the extent of property they're disposing of, comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect, and have no disorder of the mind that perverts their sense of right in disposing of their property.

Q: What is the difference between undue influence and fraudulent calumny?

A: Undue influence involves direct pressure, coercion, or manipulation forcing someone to make or change their will in a particular way. Fraudulent calumny is more subtle—someone deliberately tells the testator lies about a beneficiary to poison their mind and cause them to exclude that person from the will. Both invalidate a will, but require different types of evidence to prove.

Q: How long do I have to contest a will in the UK?

A: For validity challenges (capacity, undue influence, fraud, execution), there is technically no fixed time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 (12 years for claims to personal estate). However, for Inheritance Act 1975 claims (reasonable financial provision), you must bring the claim within 6 months of the grant of probate. It's crucial to act quickly regardless, as evidence deteriorates and estates may be distributed.

Q: What evidence do I need to challenge a will on grounds of lack of capacity?

A: You need to raise 'real doubt' that the testator lacked capacity. Useful evidence includes: medical records showing dementia, Alzheimer's, or mental illness around the time the will was made, witness statements from family or carers about the testator's mental state, GP attendance notes or capacity assessments, expert medical opinion retrospectively assessing capacity, and evidence the will is out of character or irrational (e.g., excluding close family for no reason).

Q: Can I challenge a will if someone was a witness and also a beneficiary?

A: Under Section 15 of the Wills Act 1837, if a beneficiary or their spouse acts as a witness to the will, the will itself remains valid but that specific beneficiary's gift becomes void. They lose their inheritance but the rest of the will stands. This is improper execution but doesn't invalidate the entire will—it just removes that beneficiary's entitlement.

Q: What is a probate caveat and how does it work?

A: A probate caveat is a formal notice you lodge with the Probate Registry to prevent a grant of probate being issued. It lasts 6 months (extendable) and stops the estate being distributed while you investigate whether to challenge the will. You enter a caveat using form PA8A, costing £3, and don't need the death certificate to apply. It's a protective measure giving you time to gather evidence for a challenge.

Q: What happens if a will is successfully challenged?

A: If a will is declared invalid, the estate is distributed according to a previous valid will if one exists. If there's no earlier will, the intestacy rules apply—meaning the estate passes to the deceased's closest relatives in a statutory order (spouse, then children, then parents, siblings, etc.). The invalid will is set aside as if it never existed.

Q: How much does it cost to contest a will in the UK?

A: Contested probate cases can cost £10,000-£100,000+ in legal fees, depending on complexity and whether the case goes to trial. Many solicitors offer 'no win, no fee' arrangements or litigation funding for strong cases. Mediation is a more affordable alternative (often under £5,000) and from October 2024, courts can penalise parties who unreasonably refuse to engage in alternative dispute resolution.

Q: What is the success rate of contesting a will in the UK?

A: Success rates vary significantly by grounds and evidence strength. Around 10,000 people dispute wills annually in England and Wales, but only 195 resulted in court hearings in 2021-22—most settle out of court. Undue influence claims are cited as the most common ground but have low success rates due to high evidence burden. Lack of capacity and fraud claims succeed more often when medical evidence is strong.

Conclusion

Key takeaways:

  • The six grounds for contesting a will in the UK are: lack of testamentary capacity (Banks v Goodfellow test), undue influence, lack of knowledge and approval, improper execution under the Wills Act 1837, fraud or forgery, and fraudulent calumny (poisoning testator's mind).
  • For capacity, undue influence, and fraud challenges, there's no strict time limit (12 years under Limitation Act 1980), but you must act urgently as evidence deteriorates. Inheritance Act 1975 claims have a strict 6-month deadline from probate.
  • Enter a probate caveat (Form PA8A, £3) immediately if you suspect invalidity—it prevents probate being granted while you investigate and costs almost nothing.
  • Gather evidence early: medical records (for capacity), witness statements (for undue influence), expert reports (for fraud/forgery), and documentation of testator's previous intentions or earlier wills.
  • Consider mediation before litigation—it's faster, cheaper (under £5,000 vs. £10,000-£100,000+ for trial), and from October 2024, courts penalise parties who unreasonably refuse ADR.

Challenging a will isn't about greed or disrespecting the deceased—it's about ensuring their final wishes were genuinely theirs, made with full mental capacity, free from pressure, and legally sound. If you have real concerns about a will's validity, you owe it to the deceased and to justice to investigate. But you also owe it to your family to do so efficiently, with proper legal advice, and with genuine evidence—not mere suspicion. The grounds exist to protect vulnerable testators and preserve true testamentary freedom. Consider also how to store your will safely to prevent disputes and appointing guardians in your will to protect your children.

Need Help with Your Will?

Understanding the grounds for contesting a will highlights how important it is to get yours right the first time. A properly executed, clearly worded will made with full testamentary capacity is far harder to challenge—protecting your wishes and preventing family conflict after you're gone.

Create your will with confidence using WUHLD's guided platform. For just £99.99, you'll get your complete will (legally binding when properly executed and witnessed) plus three expert guides. Preview your will free before paying anything—no credit card required.

Legal Disclaimer:

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. WUHLD is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Laws and guidance change and their application depends on your circumstances. For advice about your situation, consult a qualified solicitor or regulated professional. Unless stated otherwise, information relates to England and Wales.