Time Limits for Contesting a Will — Don’t Miss the Deadline

Time limits for contesting a will in England and Wales are among the most unforgiving in civil litigation. Miss the wrong deadline and you may lose your right to challenge the estate entirely, even if your underlying claim is strong. Different legal routes for contesting a will or challenging an estate distribution carry different time limits — some fixed by statute, some imposed by procedural rules, and some that the court applies as a matter of discretion. Understanding which limit applies to your potential claim is the first task, and it must be done quickly: the clock often starts running from the date of the grant of probate, not from the date you discovered you might have a claim.

The most critical deadline is the six-month time limit under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which is a hard statutory limit that the court is very reluctant to extend. But there are also practical deadlines for challenging the validity of a will through the caveat system, limitation periods for fraud and proprietary claims, and registration requirements for certain trust-based arguments. A claimant who delays taking advice is a claimant who may find their options have narrowed or disappeared.

This guide explains the key time limits for each type of estate challenge, the circumstances in which courts will extend a deadline, and the practical steps claimants should take urgently if they believe they have a claim. For an overview of the grounds for challenging a will’s validity, see our contested wills guide. For advice on the probate process itself, see our guide to the probate process.

The Six-Month Rule for Inheritance Act Claims

The most important statutory time limit for estate challenges is the six-month period under s.4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Under this provision, any application under the Act must be issued in court within six months of the date on which a grant of probate or letters of administration is made. Not six months from the date of death, and not six months from when the applicant discovered they had a claim — six months from the grant. Once that period expires, the applicant requires the court’s permission to proceed, and permission is granted sparingly.

The courts have consistently emphasised that the six-month limit exists to provide certainty to personal representatives and beneficiaries — to allow estates to be administered and distributed without indefinite exposure to future claims. In Re McNulty (2015), the Court of Appeal confirmed that the discretion to extend time is not to be exercised lightly and that applicants who have no good explanation for the delay will not generally be permitted to proceed late. The estate’s administration may continue and distributions may be made while a claim is pending, but executors who distribute with knowledge of an impending claim do so at personal risk.

How the Caveat System Protects Challengers Before a Grant Issues

Before a grant of probate or administration issues, a person with a potential challenge to a will can enter a caveat at the Probate Registry. A caveat is a formal notice that prevents the Probate Registry from issuing the grant without first notifying the caveator. This gives the challenger time to investigate their claim and, if appropriate, to issue proceedings before the estate is locked away behind a grant.

A caveat lasts for six months from the date it is entered and can be renewed for further six-month periods before it expires. If the person applying for the grant (the person with the will or the applicant for letters of administration) believes the caveat has no proper basis, they can issue a warning, which forces the caveator either to file an appearance within eight days or to allow the caveat to be removed. If an appearance is filed, the matter proceeds as a probate action. The caveat system allows potential challengers to protect their position before grant without having to issue full proceedings immediately, and it is often the first step a specialist solicitor takes when instructed on a contested will matter. HMRC provides further procedural context on the GOV.UK wills and probate guidance pages.

Challenging a Will After Probate: Fraud and Forgery Claims

Where a will challenge is based on fraud or forgery rather than invalidity grounds such as capacity or undue influence, the limitation position is different. Claims in fraud are governed by s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which provides that time does not begin to run until the claimant discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. In practice, this means that a forgery discovered years after the grant of probate may still be challengeable — though the burden of proving the fraud and the delay in discovery will both require careful explanation.

However, even fraud-based claims are not without time limits. The longstop provision in s.32(3) of the 1980 Act prevents an action being brought more than six years after the right of action arose in cases involving a fraudulent breach of trust where there has been a change of ownership. Claimants in complex fraud cases should take specialist advice on limitation at the earliest opportunity rather than assuming that the discovery rule gives them unlimited time.

Proprietary Estoppel and Constructive Trust Claims

Where a claimant argues that they were promised a share of the estate by the deceased, acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise (for example, by working the family farm for below-market wages in the expectation of inheriting it), and it would be unconscionable for the estate to resile from the promise, they may have a claim in proprietary estoppel or constructive trust. These are equitable claims and are not subject to the strict six-year contract limitation period in the same way — equity looks at the overall fairness of the position and the conduct of the parties.

Proprietary estoppel claims are frequently seen in agricultural and family business contexts, where the deceased made assurances over many years that a child or employee would inherit the farm or business. The leading cases — including Thorner v Major [2009] — confirm that a clear assurance, detrimental reliance, and unconscionability must all be established. For the executor’s perspective on how such claims affect the estate, see our guide to executor duties.

What to Do If You Think You Have Missed the Deadline

If you believe you may be outside the six-month Inheritance Act window or another relevant limitation period, do not simply assume your claim is lost. Courts can and do extend time in appropriate cases — particularly where the delay was caused by the applicant not knowing of the existence of the estate or the grant, where the applicant was receiving treatment for mental illness during the limitation period, or where the personal representatives delayed in applying for the grant (thereby shortening the effective period available to the applicant). Extension applications must be supported by evidence explaining the delay and showing that the other parties will not suffer serious prejudice from a late claim. Take legal advice urgently before concluding that you have no remedy.

Written by Simon Jenkins, SRA 167489, Solicitor at Curtis Legal Limited (SRA 450129). If you are concerned about missing a deadline to contest a will or estate, call freephone 0800 214 216 for a same-day callback.