Can You Contest a Will After Probate UK (2026): Time Limits, Grounds, and What to Do

Yes, but the type of challenge you can bring, and the difficulty of bringing it, depends significantly on the ground you are relying on and how much of the estate has already been distributed: (1) TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF CHALLENGE AFTER GRANT: (a) Family provision claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (IPFDA 1975): these are claims that the will (or intestacy) did not make 'reasonable financial provision' for the claimant. The strict time limit under IPFDA 1975 s.4 is 6 months from the date of the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration. This is a hard deadline, the court has discretion to extend it (under s.4, approved in Re Dennis [1981]) but extensions are rare and the burden on the applicant is heavy; (b) Challenges to the will's validity (revocation, propounding a different will, or pronouncing against the grant): these include: lack of testamentary capacity (Banks v Goodfellow (1870)); want of knowledge and approval; undue influence; fraud or forgery; failure to comply with the Wills Act 1837 s.9 formal requirements. There is no strict statutory time limit on challenging the validity of a will itself, but the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 (and general equitable principles) applies, and late claims face enormous practical obstacles if the estate has been distributed; (2) WHY LATE CLAIMS ARE HARDER: once probate is granted, the executor has authority to administer the estate. Once assets are distributed to beneficiaries, recovering them is very difficult. For a validity challenge after distribution, the claimant must: apply to set aside the grant; seek the court's order that distributed assets be restored; pursue personal claims against recipients who received the assets. Courts can and do restore distributed estates in clear cases (fraud, forgery) but will not do so lightly in contested capacity cases where the estate has been properly and honestly distributed; (3) ACTING IMMEDIATELY IS ESSENTIAL: if you believe you have grounds to challenge a will and probate has been granted (or is about to be granted), take legal advice immediately. Every week of delay strengthens the executor's position and the beneficiaries' title to the assets.

A grant of probate is not an unassailable final judgment on a will's validity, it can be challenged by bringing an action in the contentious probate jurisdiction of the High Court (Probate Division). The grounds are: (1) LACK OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY (Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549): the testator must have: (a) understood the nature of making a will and its effects; (b) understood the extent of the property being disposed of; (c) understood the claims of those who might reasonably expect to benefit; (d) not been suffering from a disorder of the mind that poisoned their affections, perverted their sense of right, or prevented the exercise of their natural faculties. Proving lack of capacity after death is difficult, it requires medical records, witness evidence about the testator's condition, and expert evidence. The golden rule (Kenward v Adams (1975) The Times 29 Nov 1975) is that where the testator is elderly or suffers from known mental illness, the solicitor should have the testator's capacity assessed by a doctor at the time of making the will and have the doctor witness it, absence of this procedure does not invalidate the will but reduces the available evidence to support validity; (2) WANT OF KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL: even if the testator had capacity, they must have known the contents of the will and approved them. Suspicious circumstances (e.g. a major beneficiary prepared the will; the testator was very old or seriously ill; the will is inconsistent with earlier declared intentions) shift the evidential burden to the propounder of the will to satisfy the court that the testator knew and approved the contents. Key case: Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430; (3) UNDUE INFLUENCE: someone exerted improper pressure on the testator that overbore their free will. Unlike the civil standard of undue influence for gifts (which can be presumed in some relationships), undue influence in wills is never presumed, it must be proved by direct evidence. This is a very high bar. See Hall v Hall (1868); Boyse v Rossborough (1857); (4) FRAUD AND FORGERY: a will obtained by fraud (e.g. the testator was misled about the nature of the document they signed) or a forged will can be challenged at any time regardless of how long ago probate was granted. This is the hardest challenge to face in practice and the courts will fully investigate; (5) EXECUTION FAILURE (Wills Act 1837 s.9): the will was not properly signed; not properly witnessed (two witnesses in the presence of the testator); witnesses or their spouses were beneficiaries (though this voids the gift to the witness/spouse, not the whole will, s.15 WA 1837). A will that fails s.9 is void regardless of the testator's intentions.

The time limit for a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is set out in s.4 of the Act: (1) THE STRICT DEADLINE: the application to the court must be issued within 6 months of the date of the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration. This is not 6 months from the date of death, it runs from the date the Grant is issued. For large or complex estates, the Grant can take many months after death, so the 6-month clock may not start until well after the funeral; (2) WHO CAN BRING A CLAIM: the categories of eligible claimant under IPFDA 1975 s.1 are: (a) the spouse or civil partner of the deceased; (b) a former spouse/civil partner who has not remarried (s.1(1)(b)); (c) a cohabiting partner (same or different sex) who lived in the same household as the deceased throughout the 2 years immediately before death (s.1(1)(ba), added by the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995); (d) a child of the deceased (includes adult children, adopted children, but not stepchildren unless treated as a child by the deceased); (e) any person treated as a child of the family in relation to any marriage or civil partnership of the deceased (s.1(1)(d)); (f) any person maintained by the deceased immediately before death (s.1(1)(e)); (3) LATE CLAIMS, COURT DISCRETION: the court has a wide discretion to allow a late claim under IPFDA 1975 s.4. The leading case is Re Dennis [1981] 2 All ER 140, Browne-Wilkinson J set out factors: whether negotiations between the parties were proceeding at the time (explaining the delay); whether the estate has been distributed; the potential strength of the claim; the prejudice to the estate and beneficiaries if the extension is granted; and the applicant's explanation for the delay. Courts have allowed late applications in genuine cases of ignorance of the time limit and ongoing negotiations, but have refused where the delay is substantial and the estate distributed; (4) PRACTICAL URGENCY: once you know probate has been granted (which you can find by searching the national probate register, available for £1.50 at gov.uk), you must instruct a solicitor immediately. Do not wait to see if matters can be resolved informally, issue the claim within 6 months to preserve your right.

Distribution of an estate after probate is the most significant practical barrier to a late challenge. Here is the legal position: (1) PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES' PROTECTION: under AEA 1925 s.27, a personal representative who has paid advertisement for creditors (in the London Gazette and locally) and distributed after the required period is protected against creditor claims. Under AEA 1925 s.36, a PR who distributes in accordance with the grant is protected against claims that a later will existed. However, a PR who distributes assets before the 6-month IPFDA 1975 deadline may be personally liable if a successful family provision claim cannot be met because the assets have gone, they have breached a duty to retain assets for that period; (2) EXECUTOR'S DUTY TO HOLD ESTATE FOR 6 MONTHS: it is well-established practice that a prudent executor should not distribute the estate within 6 months of the grant, unless satisfied that no IPFDA claim will be made. A premature distribution that leaves a successful IPFDA claimant unable to recover can render the executor personally liable for the deficiency; (3) TRACING AND RECOVERY FROM RECIPIENTS: if the estate has been distributed to beneficiaries and a validity challenge then succeeds, the claimant can seek to recover from the recipients. The available remedies are: (a) equitable tracing, where assets can be identified and traced into the recipients' hands; (b) personal claims against recipients for unjust enrichment (if they knew or should have known the will was invalid); (c) claims against the executor personally for devastavit (misapplication of estate assets); (4) CAVEATING BEFORE GRANT: the most effective way to challenge a will is to enter a CAVEAT at the Probate Registry BEFORE the grant is made. A caveat prevents probate from being granted without the caveator being given notice and having the opportunity to bring a formal challenge (a 'warning' and 'appearance' procedure). Once the caveat is entered, the executor cannot distribute; if you suspect grounds for challenge, caveating early is essential; (5) SETTING ASIDE THE GRANT: a grant of probate can be revoked by the court, even after distribution. The court will do so in cases of fraud, forgery, or where the will is clearly void for execution failure. In contested capacity cases with no fraud, revocation after full distribution is very rare.

If you believe you have grounds to challenge a will and probate has already been granted, act immediately and in this order: (1) CHECK THE DATE OF THE GRANT: search the probate register (gov.uk, search 'probate search service', £1.50 per name search). The search result will show the grant date. From that date, count 6 months. If you are within 6 months and have an IPFDA claim, you must issue before that date. If you are outside 6 months, you will need to make a late application with a strong explanation; (2) INSTRUCT A SOLICITOR IMMEDIATELY: contentious probate and IPFDA claims are highly specialist areas of law. Most claims fail not because the substantive grounds are weak, but because the procedural steps are not taken correctly and in time. Use a solicitor who specialises in contentious probate (look for the ACTAPS (Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists) register); (3) GATHER EVIDENCE: for a capacity claim, obtain medical records from the GP and any treating doctors around the time the will was made; speak to carers, family members, and friends who knew the testator; obtain any contemporaneous correspondence; for undue influence, identify witnesses to the pressure exerted; document the relationship between the influencer and the testator; obtain any communications between the testator and the beneficiary around the time of making the will; for an IPFDA claim, document your relationship with the deceased, your financial position, your needs, and any promises the deceased made to you; (4) CONSIDER A LETTER BEFORE ACTION: contact the executor by letter setting out your grounds for challenge and requesting that no distribution be made pending resolution. This may achieve a negotiated outcome without litigation; (5) MEDIATION: most contentious probate disputes are resolved at mediation rather than trial. Costs of trial can be very high and are often payable out of the estate (benefiting no one). Courts actively encourage mediation, judges regularly direct parties to attempt mediation before trial; (6) COSTS: both sides' costs in a contested will action are typically paid out of the estate if the claim is brought on reasonable grounds. Where the testator or their solicitor was at fault (suspicious circumstances; failure to follow the golden rule in Kenward v Adams), costs may be ordered against the estate. Where a claim is entirely speculative or weak, costs may be ordered against the claimant personally.