Left Out of a Will UK (2026): What Are Your Rights If You've Been Excluded?

In England and Wales, testamentary freedom is a fundamental principle — a person can generally leave their estate to whoever they choose. However, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 ('IPFDA 1975') allows certain people to apply to the court for reasonable financial provision if the will (or intestacy) does not make adequate provision for them. The eligible categories under IPFDA 1975 s.1(1) are: (1) THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OR CIVIL PARTNER: any husband, wife, or civil partner of the deceased. The standard of provision is the highest — 'such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive, whether or not that provision is required for his or her maintenance' — in other words, broadly equivalent to what they might receive on divorce (the 'survivor's standard'); (2) FORMER SPOUSE OR CIVIL PARTNER WHO HAS NOT REMARRIED: a former spouse who has not remarried and has not entered a new civil partnership can claim — but only to the extent that they have not received a clean break financial settlement on divorce. In practice, a former spouse who received a full financial remedy order (FMO) on divorce is unlikely to succeed; (3) A CHILD OF THE DECEASED: any child of the deceased, of any age. Adult children face a higher hurdle than minor children — courts generally expect adult children to provide for themselves. However, a claim is possible if the applicant is in financial need and the deceased made no provision for them. Special factors include: disability; prior dependence; an informal moral obligation that the deceased acknowledged; (4) A PERSON TREATED AS A CHILD BY THE DECEASED: step-children, foster children, or others treated as children of the family — even without formal adoption. The key question is whether the deceased 'treated [the applicant] as a child of the family' in relation to a marriage or civil partnership; (5) A COHABITING PARTNER: a person who lived with the deceased as husband/wife (or civil partner equivalent) in the same household for at least two years immediately before the death. This is a specific and strict test — both the 'living together' element and the 'two years immediately before death' element must be satisfied; (6) A PERSON BEING MAINTAINED BY THE DECEASED: any person who, immediately before the death, was being maintained wholly or partly by the deceased. 'Maintenance' involves the deceased making a substantial contribution in money or money's worth towards the applicant's reasonable needs — a relative who was financially supported; a companion who was housed; a carer who was paid below market rates. Note: being a close blood relative (sibling, cousin, niece, nephew, parent) does not itself give a right to claim. Moral expectation alone is not sufficient.

The time limit for an IPFDA 1975 claim is strict and often missed: (1) THE DEADLINE: an application under IPFDA 1975 must be made within SIX MONTHS of the date on which the Grant of Probate (or Letters of Administration) is issued — IPFDA 1975 s.4. This is not six months from the death — it is six months from the grant. The grant may be issued several months after death; (2) WHY THIS MATTERS: many people who are left out of a will only find out about it when the estate is being distributed — potentially months after the grant was issued. By then, the six-month window may have already closed; (3) LATE APPLICATIONS — COURT DISCRETION: the court has discretion to extend the time limit under s.4 ('if it thinks it just to do so'). However, this discretion is exercised sparingly and requires the applicant to show good reason for the delay. In Re Dennis [1981] 2 All ER 140, the court emphasised the test is whether it is just to extend — not just whether the applicant has a good excuse. Factors the court considers: (a) whether negotiations were ongoing before the six months expired; (b) whether the estate has been distributed (a powerful factor against extension); (c) the strength of the potential claim; (d) the reason for the delay; (4) ESTATE DISTRIBUTED BEFORE CLAIM: if the estate has been distributed to the beneficiaries before a claim is made, a late application becomes very difficult. The court can order recovery from beneficiaries who received distributions with knowledge of a potential claim, but this is complex, expensive, and not guaranteed; (5) PRACTICAL STEPS: get specialist legal advice immediately — ideally within the first three months of the grant. Many family solicitors offer a free initial consultation on contentious probate matters. Do not delay on the assumption that the family will reach an agreement — negotiations do not pause the limitation clock unless a standstill agreement is signed.

Yes — challenging the validity of the will itself is an alternative (or additional) route to an IPFDA 1975 financial provision claim. If the will is found to be invalid, the deceased's estate passes either under an earlier valid will or under the intestacy rules. The main grounds for challenging a will are: (1) LACK OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY (Banks v Goodfellow [1870]): the testator did not have capacity at the time of execution — they did not understand the nature of the document, the extent of their property, the claims of those who might expect to benefit, or were suffering from a delusion that distorted their dispositions. Common in cases involving dementia, Parkinson's disease, stroke, or severe mental illness at the time of making the will. Medical records are central evidence; (2) UNDUE INFLUENCE: the testator's free will was overborne by another person — typically a beneficiary — who pressured, coerced, or manipulated them into making a will that does not reflect their own wishes. This is a high evidential bar — influence must be 'undue' (overpowering the testator's free will) rather than legitimate persuasion, natural affection, or ordinary family discussions. Suspicious circumstances: carer or recently formed companion heavily benefited; testator had reduced capacity; applicant excluded without obvious reason; beneficiary involved in arranging the will; (3) WANT OF KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL: even if the testator had capacity and no undue influence, they may not have known and approved the actual contents of the will (Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430). This may arise where a will was prepared in unusual circumstances — unusual for its contents, or where the testator could not read; (4) EXECUTION FAILURE: the will was not properly executed under WA 1837 s.9 — not signed; not witnessed by two independent witnesses present at the time of the testator's signature; witnesses not present simultaneously. This includes suspicious circumstances around a homemade or hastily prepared will; (5) FRAUD AND FORGERY: the will is a forgery or was procured by fraud — rare, but investigated in some cases; (6) PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS: challenging a will on these grounds is complex, expensive ('loser pays' costs risks apply), and time-consuming — typically 1-3 years in contested proceedings. Mediation is strongly recommended before litigation. Many challenges settle on the steps of the court. Costs can be recovered from the estate if the challenge succeeds; from the unsuccessful challenger if it fails.

The court's power and approach under IPFDA 1975 depends on who is making the claim: (1) THE TWO STANDARDS: (a) Surviving spouse / civil partner standard — the court considers what financial provision it would be reasonable for the applicant to receive, taking into account all the circumstances (IPFDA 1975 s.2). The courts apply a 'divorce-analogy' — broadly comparable to a financial remedy order on divorce. This is the most generous standard; (b) Maintenance standard — all other applicants (adult children, former spouses, cohabitants, dependants) are limited to provision 'required for their maintenance'. This is not a full share of the estate — it is what is needed to maintain the applicant at a reasonable standard. Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461 — adult child's 'moral claim' is insufficient; the court looks for evidence of financial need; (2) FACTORS THE COURT CONSIDERS (IPFDA 1975 s.3): (a) The financial resources and financial needs of the applicant; (b) The financial resources and financial needs of all other beneficiaries; (c) The obligations and responsibilities the deceased had towards the applicant and the beneficiaries; (d) The size and nature of the net estate; (e) Any physical or mental disability of the applicant; (f) Any other matter the court considers relevant, including the deceased's conduct; (3) ADULT CHILDREN — THE REALISTIC PICTURE: adult children face the hardest claims. Re Pearce [1998] 2 FLR 776 — a 'moral obligation' by itself is not enough; you need to show actual financial need or financial dependence. Re Myers [2004] — a disabled adult child unable to work received maintenance provision. Williams v Johns [1988] — an estranged adult child still received limited provision, but the estrangement was a significant negative factor; (4) COHABITING PARTNERS: since 2020, the courts have become slightly more generous with cohabitant claims, but the two-year cohabitation threshold is strictly applied — someone who cohabited for 23 months before death has NO IPFDA s.1(1)(ba) claim (but may still qualify as a dependant under s.1(1)(e)); (5) TYPICAL OUTCOMES: full share equivalent to entitlement under intestacy (reserved for close dependants); monthly maintenance payments; a lump sum for housing needs; a right to occupy the property for a period. The court will not necessarily give the applicant what they hoped for — particularly adult children who lived independently and were financially comfortable.

Act quickly — the six-month limitation is strict. Here is the recommended sequence: (1) OBTAIN A COPY OF THE WILL AND THE GRANT: once probate is granted, the will and the Grant of Probate become public documents — anyone can search the national probate registry (gov.uk probate search) and order a copy for £1.50. This tells you: the full terms of the will; who the executors are; the date probate was granted (which starts the six-month clock); (2) CALCULATE THE SIX-MONTH DEADLINE: count exactly six months from the grant date. If you have fewer than three months remaining, take legal advice immediately; (3) GET SPECIALIST LEGAL ADVICE: instruct a solicitor who specialises in contentious probate and Inheritance Act claims. Many offer a free or fixed-fee first consultation. You need to know: whether you are within the eligible categories under IPFDA 1975 s.1; whether there are grounds to challenge the will's validity; the realistic value of a claim given the estate size and the competing needs; the likely costs; (4) CONSIDER WHETHER TO CHALLENGE THE WILL OR MAKE AN IPFDA CLAIM (OR BOTH): these are different routes with different evidence requirements. It is possible to advance both a capacity/undue influence challenge AND an IPFDA 1975 financial provision claim in the alternative; (5) SEND A LETTER BEFORE ACTION AND REQUEST A STANDSTILL: if the estate is large and the six months has not yet expired, a solicitor can write to the executors putting them on notice of a potential claim. This letter: (a) Preserves your position; (b) Requests that the executors do not distribute the estate; (c) May also contain a request for financial disclosure; (d) Opens the door to early negotiation or mediation; (6) CONSIDER MEDIATION: most contested probate cases settle before trial — often at a mediation. Mediation costs are significantly lower than trial costs. The 'loser pays' costs rule in contested probate can be devastating — failing at trial can result in a six-figure costs bill; (7) IF THE ESTATE IS SMALL: a claim may simply not be economical. An estate of £50,000 does not usually justify £10,000-20,000 in legal costs for a contested IPFDA claim. Be realistic — your solicitor should advise on the proportionality of the claim to the likely recovery.