Disinheriting Someone in a UK Will: What the Law Allows and What It Doesn’t

Updated: 01 June 2026 • Reading time: 9 min

England and Wales is one of the few legal systems in the world where you can leave your entire estate to whomever you like — a charity, a friend, even a pet charity — and nothing at all to your children or estranged relatives. This is the principle of freedom of testation. But it comes with a significant qualification: the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 gives certain categories of person the right to apply to court for reasonable financial provision if your will (or the intestacy rules) leaves them without enough. This guide explains who can be safely disinherited, who can challenge the exclusion, and how to reduce the risk of a successful claim.

Freedom of Testation: The Starting Point

Unlike France (where children receive a reserved share — the réserve héréditaire), or Scotland (where children and spouses have legal rights to a share of moveable property), England and Wales has no system of forced heirship. Subject to formality requirements under the Wills Act 1837, you can write any distribution you wish. You are not required to explain your decisions to anyone, and no family member has an automatic right to inherit.

The limits on this freedom come not from property law but from a separate welfare jurisdiction: the 1975 Act. Understanding the 1975 Act is essential before you disinherit anyone in your will.

Who Can Challenge a Will Under the Inheritance Act 1975?

Only people in the following categories can apply under the 1975 Act — and only if the deceased was domiciled in England and Wales at the time of death:

• Spouse or civil partner — the strongest category. Standard is “such provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances for a husband or wife to receive”, which goes beyond mere maintenance.
• Former spouse or civil partner (not remarried) — maintenance only; limited to those who have a court order or have not yet been awarded a clean-break financial settlement.
• Cohabiting partner — lived in the same household as the deceased for at least two years immediately before the death (s.1(1)(ba), 1975 Act, as inserted by the Law Reform (Succession) Act 1995). Maintenance level only.
• Child of the deceased (including adult children and illegitimate children). Maintenance level — but courts apply this broadly where the child was financially dependent on the deceased at the time of death.
• Child of the family — a child (not the deceased’s own biological or adopted child) who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in a marriage or civil partnership. Includes stepchildren. Maintenance level.
• Person maintained by the deceased — anyone who immediately before the death was being wholly or partly maintained by the deceased and who cannot obtain maintenance from the estate (s.1(1)(e)). A broader safety net category.

What “Reasonable Financial Provision” Means in Practice

For all applicants except a surviving spouse or civil partner, the court can only award what is reasonably required for their maintenance. This is not a share of the estate for its own sake — the court considers:

• The applicant’s current and foreseeable financial needs and resources
• The financial needs of all beneficiaries under the will
• Any obligations the deceased had towards the applicant
• The size and nature of the estate
• Any disability of the applicant
• The deceased’s conduct towards the applicant during their lifetime

For a surviving spouse or civil partner, the court applies the broader family provision standard and also considers: the applicant’s age, the duration of the marriage, the applicant’s contribution to the family’s welfare, and what the applicant would have received on a divorce — this is the so-called notional divorce exercise (introduced in Cunliffe v Fielden [2006] Ch 361).

Courts can award a lump sum, periodical payments, a transfer of specific property, or a variation of any settlement. Awards from the estate are not limited to income — capital awards are common in spouse and long-term cohabitee cases.

Disinheriting Adult Children: When Does It Work?

Adult children have the weakest 1975 Act claim of all family members. Courts regularly dismiss adult child claims where:

• The child is financially self-sufficient and has no dependency on the deceased
• The child received lifetime gifts or benefited from the deceased’s estate during life
• The deceased had genuine and rational reasons for exclusion (e.g. estrangement, the child’s conduct, a preference to benefit a charity)
• The estate was modest and distributing it among claimants would be impractical

The leading case is Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 (Supreme Court), where the Court reduced a 1975 Act award in favour of an estranged adult daughter and affirmed that a testator’s wishes — and their charitable intentions — deserve significant weight. However, the Court did award the daughter £50,000 (out of a £500,000 estate) to enable her to purchase her housing association property, making clear that adult children are not automatically barred from recovery.

Practical Steps to Reduce the Risk of a Successful Claim

If you intend to disinherit a person who could apply under the 1975 Act, consider:

1. Write a contemporaneous letter of wishes. This is a private, non-binding letter to your executor explaining your reasons. Keep it separate from the will. Courts give it evidential weight — a clear, cogent explanation (rather than a blank exclusion) makes a 1975 Act claim harder to sustain. The letter should be dated, signed, and kept with the will.
2. Make lifetime provision instead. Gifts made more than 7 years before death fall outside the estate for IHT and for 1975 Act claims. If you wish to benefit some children and not others, a combination of lifetime gifts (to the favoured beneficiaries) and a streamlined will can reduce the value of the estate available to claimants.
3. Use a discretionary trust. Assets held in a discretionary trust do not form part of the deceased’s estate for 1975 Act purposes if the trust was created in the deceased’s lifetime and the deceased had no interest in possession. This is an advanced planning strategy that requires solicitor advice.
4. Consider a mutual will arrangement with care. Mutual wills impose contractual obligations on the survivor not to change the will — they do not prevent 1975 Act claims but can reduce assets available to an award by ring-fencing them.
5. Take legal advice if the person to be disinherited is financially dependent on you. Current dependency is the most dangerous factor for a successful 1975 Act claim. If someone relies on you financially today, that dependency needs careful management before death — either by addressing it (supporting their financial independence) or by reflecting it in the will.

Assets That Fall Outside a 1975 Act Claim

The 1975 Act applies to the “net estate”, which the Act defines to include most assets passing under the will or intestacy. However, some assets are outside the net estate or can be moved outside it:

• Jointly owned property (joint tenancy). A property held as joint tenants passes automatically to the surviving owner by survivorship — it does not pass under the will or intestacy and is not part of the net estate for 1975 Act purposes (though the court has a power in s.9 of the 1975 Act to order that a severed share forms part of the estate for the purposes of a claim — a rarely used power).
• Life insurance written in trust. A policy held in trust for named beneficiaries pays out to the trustees on death and does not form part of the estate. It cannot be attacked under the 1975 Act (subject to the s.10/11 anti-avoidance rules for transactions intended to defeat claims).
• Pension death benefits nominated to a specific beneficiary. Discretionary pension trusts pay nominated beneficiaries outside the estate. From April 2027 they will be subject to IHT, but they remain outside the net estate for 1975 Act purposes.
• Lifetime gifts (subject to anti-avoidance). Outright gifts made before death reduce the estate. The court can set aside transactions in the last 6 years that were made with the intention of defeating a 1975 Act claim (s.10 and s.11), but only where the court is satisfied that the dominant intention was to defeat the claim.

Frequently Asked Questions