When an Estate Is Called to Account: Inheritance Act Claims in 2026

A will is the ordinary starting point for administering an estate, but it is not always the final word. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 gives a limited class of applicants the right to ask the court to reconsider what an estate provides. The jurisdiction applies in England and Wales, and it is one of the few areas of private client law where a carefully drafted will can still be reopened after death.

For a person left out, or left with less than expected, the Act can be a route to provision. For executors and beneficiaries, it is a risk to be managed promptly and without panic. The same statute creates both opportunities and hazards, and timing is rarely neutral.

The will as starting point, not conclusion

The 1975 Act does not permit the court to rewrite a will simply because a distribution seems unfair. It permits an application only where the will, or the rules of intestacy, fail to make reasonable financial provision for an eligible applicant. The court then considers whether, and how, the estate should be adjusted.

That distinction matters. A disappointed friend, a distant cousin or an expectant beneficiary under an earlier will will not usually have standing. The Act is protective in purpose, but it is not a general jurisdiction to redistribute wealth according to the court's own view of fairness.

Who can bring a claim

The categories of eligible applicant are specific. They include a spouse or civil partner of the deceased; a former spouse or former civil partner who has not remarried; a person who lived with the deceased as a cohabitant for at least two years before the death; a child of the deceased, whether minor or adult; a person treated by the deceased as a child of the family; and a person who was maintained by the deceased immediately before death.

Each category carries its own evidential burdens. A cohabitant must establish the qualifying period and the nature of the relationship. An adult child must show more than disappointment: the court will examine needs, resources and the broader family circumstances. A dependant must demonstrate maintenance in fact, not merely occasional generosity. Executors should therefore test standing at the outset rather than assume that every letter of complaint is a viable claim.

What reasonable financial provision really means

The Act applies two different standards. For a spouse or civil partner, the question is what provision would be reasonable for them to receive, judged by the standard that would apply if the marriage or civil partnership had ended in divorce rather than death. That is a more generous test than bare maintenance, although it does not automatically mean half the estate or a fixed share.

For other applicants, the standard is maintenance. The court asks whether the provision is sufficient to meet the applicant's financial needs, not whether it reflects a fair share of family wealth. Needs are assessed in the round: income, capital, housing, age, health, obligations to others, the deceased's reasons for the disposition, contributions to the estate or family, and the resources of the beneficiaries may all be relevant.

The outcome is fact-sensitive. A surviving spouse with secure housing and independent means may receive less than a spouse facing ill health and reduced income. An adult child in financial difficulty may succeed where a sibling in comfortable circumstances would not. The court retains a broad discretion, which is why early legal advice and reliable financial disclosure are more useful than prediction.

The six-month window after the grant

A claim must ordinarily be brought within six months from the date on which the grant of probate or letters of administration is first taken out. The deadline runs from the grant, not from the date of death and not from the date on which a disappointed person first learns of the will.

The court has power to extend time, but an extension is not a formality. Delay must be explained, prejudice to the estate considered, and the merits examined. Applicants who allow the six months to pass without issuing proceedings put themselves at a serious disadvantage.

Executors face the mirror image of that deadline. If they distribute the estate too readily, and a claim later succeeds, they may be exposed to personal liability to the extent that assets have been paid away. Personal representatives are not expected to suspend administration indefinitely, and the law provides a measure of protection after the six-month period where no claim is pending and no notice has been received. But where a claim is intimated, or the facts suggest one is likely, distribution should not proceed without advice.

If you have been left out

Begin with the documents. Obtain a copy of the will, confirm whether a grant has been issued, and identify the estate's principal assets. Then assess the claim honestly: are you within the eligible class, what provision do you actually need, and what evidence supports that need?

A carefully drafted letter before action can lead to settlement without proceedings. Mediation is often appropriate, particularly where family relationships are fragile and costs would otherwise consume the estate. A deed of variation may be possible if all beneficiaries consent, but it is not a substitute for a claim where consent is unavailable and the six-month clock is running.

If the estate is on the receiving end

Executors should not treat a claim as a personal attack or as a reason to freeze all administration. Their duty is to the estate as a whole. That means acknowledging correspondence, taking advice on standing and merits, preserving assets, keeping beneficiaries informed, and considering negotiation where it is commercially sensible.

Defending an estate is not a matter of stubbornness. It requires a clear view of the applicant's needs, the estate's resources, the deceased's reasons for the will and the risks of litigation. Costs are fact-specific; there is no automatic rule that the estate pays. Early advice usually costs less than a late application to court.

Preventing trouble before it starts

A testator cannot eliminate every risk, but can reduce it. Take advice on dependants and cohabitants, record the reasons for any exclusion in a separate note, review the will after changes in family or finances, and consider whether a trust or life interest is more appropriate than an outright gift. Clear reasons do not bind the court, but they help executors and may narrow the dispute.

At Howard Fairbairn, the consistent message is to act early and with evidence. Whether you are considering a claim or defending an estate in 2026, the six-month period is not a technical footnote. It is the point at which a family conversation becomes a legal proceeding.