Skip to main content Skip to footer 
Where a Will Becomes a Battleground
Death brings out the best in some families and the worst in others. Grief, money, old resentments, and unequal treatment comes to the surface when a will is read and someone feels they have been treated unfairly.
At Tower Bridge Legal, we act for clients on both sides of will disputes – those who believe a will does not reflect the true wishes of the deceased, and those defending an estate against claims they consider unjustified. These cases are emotionally charged, often bitterly fought, and require solicitors who understand both the legal technicalities and the human dynamics at play.
Claims for Reasonable Financial Provision
Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 are the most common type of will dispute. The Act allows certain categories of people to apply to court for reasonable financial provision from an estate if the will (or the intestacy rules, if there is no will) has not made adequate provision for them.
Spouses and civil partners can claim, as well as former spouses who have not remarried, and so too can children of the deceased, though adult sons and daughters face a harder task showing they are entitled to anything.
People who lived with the deceased as husband or wife for at least two years can claim. Anyone who was being maintained by the deceased immediately before death can claim. The court looks at all the circumstances, such as the size of the estate, the needs of the claimant and other beneficiaries, the obligations the deceased had, what the claimant might reasonably have expected to receive, and decides whether the will made reasonable provision and, if not, what provision should be ordered.
Was the Will Valid in the first Place?
Challenging the validity of a will is a different kind of dispute. Here the argument is not that the will was unfair but that it was not a valid will at all, or not a valid expression of the deceased’s true intentions.
Grounds for challenge include lack of testamentary capacity (the deceased did not understand what they were doing), lack of knowledge and approval (the deceased did not know or approve the contents of the will), undue influence (someone pressured the deceased into making the will against their true wishes), fraud, and failure to comply with the formalities required for valid execution.
These claims require evidence, and the evidence is often difficult to obtain after the testator has died. Medical records, witness statements, correspondence, and earlier wills may all be relevant. We know what to look for and how to build a case.
Undue influence is particularly hard to prove. The law distinguishes between legitimate persuasion (which is allowed) and illegitimate pressure that overbears the testator’s own will (which invalidates the gift).
The line is not always clear. An elderly parent who changes their will to favour the child who looks after them is not necessarily acting under undue influence – they may simply be grateful. But if that child isolated the parent from other family members, controlled access to information, and orchestrated the will change in circumstances that suggest the parent had no real choice, the picture looks different. These cases turn heavily on their facts, and assembling those facts takes careful investigation.
Broken Promises: Proprietary Estoppel
Proprietary estoppel claims arise where someone was promised an inheritance, typically by a parent, and relied on that promise to their detriment. The classic scenario involves a child who worked on the family farm for years at low wages, on the understanding that they would inherit it, only to find that the will leaves everything to someone else.
If the promise was clear, the reliance was reasonable, and the detriment was real, the court may order that the promise be honoured or that the claimant receive compensation. These claims sit outside the Inheritance Act framework and involve different legal principles, but they often arise in similar family contexts.
Rectification is a remedy available where a will does not accurately reflect the testator’s instructions due to a clerical error or a failure by the drafter to understand those instructions.
If the will says something other than what the deceased intended, and the error can be proved, the court can correct it. Time limits apply, and the evidence required is substantial – you need to show what the testator actually intended and how the will came to depart from it.
Costs in will disputes can escalate quickly, and the emotional toll is often worse than the financial one. Litigation that drags on for years, dividing families who might otherwise have found a way to reconcile, benefits nobody except the solicitors, and at Tower Bridge Legal, we say that as solicitors ourselves.
Why Early Action Matters
We encourage early negotiation and mediation wherever a reasonable settlement is possible but when the other side will not engage sensibly, or when the issues genuinely need a judge to resolve them, we are prepared to litigate and have the experience to do so effectively.
If you believe you have been unfairly left out of a will, or if you are an executor facing a claim against the estate you are administering, time limits matter. Inheritance Act claims must generally be brought within six months of the grant of probate. Other claims have different limitation periods. Do not delay in seeking advice because the sooner we understand your situation, the better placed we are to help you achieve a sensible outcome.
