Inheritance, Will & Trust Disputes

Contentious probate covers disputes that arise after someone dies, usually about who should inherit, whether a will is valid, or how an estate is being administered. The most common files we see include: (i) challenges to will validity (capacity, undue influence, execution errors), (ii) Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims for “reasonable financial provision,” (iii) executor/administrator disputes (removal/replacement), (iv) proprietary estoppel and trust claims where promises about inheritance or property have been made and relied upon, and (v) beneficiary-to-beneficiary disagreements over valuations, delays, or distributions. Procedure typically straddles the Non-Contentious Probate Rules (to get/stop a grant) and the Civil Procedure Rules (for the underlying claim) 

Anyone with a realistic, legally recognisable interest in the estate can bring a challenge. In practice that includes:
Named beneficiaries in the last will, in an earlier will, or those cut out entirely;
People who would inherit under the rules of intestacy if the will falls (spouses/civil partners, children, then wider family by statutory order); and
People with statutory or equitable claims, like a 1975 Act applicant (spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, child/treated-as-child, or dependant) or someone alleging proprietary estoppel.

The principal grounds are:
Lack of testamentary capacity – the testator didn’t understand the nature of making a will, the extent of their property, or claims upon them. Capacity is medical-legal; contemporaneous GP notes and specialist capacity assessments (where available) are pivotal.
Undue influence – coercion that overbears the testator’s free will. Direct evidence is rare; the court looks at vulnerability, the relationship dynamics, secrecy, and “suspicious circumstances.”
Fraudulent calumny / forgery – poisoning the testator’s mind with falsehoods about a potential beneficiary, or falsifying the document/signature.
Want of due execution / knowledge and approval – failures to comply with formalities (e.g., attestation) or where, given suspicious circumstances, the propounder has not shown the testator knew and approved what they signed.

A caveat (entered at the Probate Registry) stops a grant of probate issuing for six months (renewable). It’s a protective device to buy time to investigate validity concerns before a grant is made. If the other side wants to move things along, they can issue a warning; the caveator must then enter an appearance at which point only court proceedings (or agreement between the parties) will resolve the caveat. In practice we pair a caveat with targeted evidence-gathering (e.g., a Larke v Nugus request for the will-drafter’s file) so we can decide whether to proceed to a validity claim or consent to the grant.

The 1975 Act lets specific categories of people ask the court to adjust the estate for “reasonable financial provision.” Eligible applicants include a spouse/civil partner, a former spouse who hasn’t remarried, a cohabitant of 2+ years, a child (including adult children) or someone treated as a child, and anyone maintained by the deceased. The court weighs statutory s.3 factors: financial resources/needs (of the applicant and beneficiaries), obligations and responsibilities the deceased had, the size/nature of the estate, disability and conduct , and—critically for spouses—the standard may be the “divorce cross-check” . Most claims resolve at mediation; if not, relief can range from lump sums to life interests or property transfers. Limitation is six months from the grant

Proprietary estoppel is about kept promises: (1) an assurance about property (e.g., “the farm will be yours”), (2) reliance on that assurance, and (3) detriment (working for low wages, investing time/money, foregoing opportunities). If proved, the court does the minimum equity to do justice—often a property interest or compensatory award. In an estates context it’s common where a property was promised informally over many years but is left to someone else in a will. These cases are evidence-heavy (family witnesses, accounts, diaries, messages) and again often suited to mediation given the personal dynamics.   

Increasingly critical. Since Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil and the October 2024 CPR updates, ADR is embedded in the overriding objective (CPR 1.1); courts can order parties to mediate (CPR 3.1) and consider cost sanctions for an unreasonable refusal (CPR 44.2). Mediation is confidential, can be online (accommodating far-flung parties and experts), and preserves more estate value than litigating to trial.   

Timelines vary—get advice early:
1975 Act: 6 months from the grant (permission needed thereafter).
Caveat: lasts 6 months, renewable; but a caveat is a procedural hold, not a claim.
Will validity: no hard statutory “limitation period” before a grant, but delay risks the grant issuing; once issued, unpicking can be harder and laches/prejudice arguments arise.
Trust/land-related claims (e.g., some estoppel/TOLATA issues): limitation can extend well beyond six years in certain land/trust contexts, but equitable doctrines (acquiescence, laches) still bite.

At Wollens Solicitors, we understand that probate disputes are emotionally charged and legally complex. Our specialist team offers clear, practical advice tailored to your circumstances. We can: 

• Assess your claim quickly and advise on the best route forward. 

• Secure the estate by lodging caveats or injunctions where necessary. 

• Gather evidence (medical records, will-drafter’s file, financial documents) to strengthen your position. 

• Negotiate or mediate to achieve cost-effective resolutions. 
• Represent you robustly in court if litigation becomes unavoidable. 

With offices across Devon and a reputation for excellence in contentious probate, we combine technical expertise with a compassionate approach. If you’re facing a will dispute or inheritance claim, contact Wollens today for a confidential consultation.