How long do I have to dispute a will?

The law is replete with strict limitation periods, after which a claimant (often subject to certain exceptions) cannot bring a claim which they could have brought earlier. As just one example, claims for breach of trust generally have to be brought within six years of the cause of action arising (subject to certain circumstances).

There is no strict limitation for challenging the validity of a will. The only limitation that applies is the doctrine of laches. Laches is distinguishable from other limitation periods by its focus on fairness as opposed to timescale.  In probate, this means that if you wait years before contesting a will, and the estate has been distributed, the court may refuse to intervene. The aim is fairness: settled arrangements should not be disturbed without good reason, especially when beneficiaries have relied on the validity of the will.

On 18 November 2025, the High Court applied the doctrine of laches to bar a probate claim. In 1999, a father rewrote his will to exclude one of his sons. That son later sought to challenge the 1999 will on the basis that it was invalid, arguing that an earlier will (which provided for him) should take effect.

Although the claimant obtained legal advice about a potential challenge over a period of years, he took no formal steps to bring proceedings for 18½ years. His brother, who benefited under the 1999 will, relied on laches as a defence. The claimant attempted to justify the delay by referring to a spinal operation in 2006 and a restraining order against him. The court rejected both explanations, holding that neither prevented him from bringing a claim.

The court was particularly critical of the claimant’s lack of justification for delay and his express statement in October 2024 that he did not intend to challenge the will. Relying on that disavowal, the executors administered the estate. This reliance meant the claim was barred.

On the facts, the court found that the Deceased lacked testamentary capacity to execute his will and also did not know and approve the content of it. Therefore, this was a missed opportunity for the Claimant; despite the strength of his underlying claim, he was denied any relief by virtue of the doctrine of laches. He forfeited his rights to a remedy by sitting on a viable claim.

1. Delay alone will not necessarily defeat a claim. Simply waiting a long time does not automatically bar a probate claim. In Re Coghlan (Deceased) [1948] 2 All E.R. 68 CA, a will discovered decades after a death was upheld despite proceedings commencing more than 50 years later. Whilst there were some distinguishing features in this case (unadministered assets and the failure of the defence to specifically plead laches), the case demonstrates that courts have historically been reluctant to dismiss probate claims based on delay alone, particularly where assets remain undistributed.
2. Inaction can create a powerful defence. The real risk lies in how delay affects others. Where beneficiaries or executors act in reliance on a claimant’s silence or assurances, concepts such as detrimental reliance and acquiescence arise. In James v Scudamore [2023] EWHC 996 (Ch) and Bowerman v Bowerman, claims were barred because estates had been administered in reliance on the claimant’s inaction or express disavowal.
3. Courts will assess whether the claim serves any purpose. Modern courts adopt a pragmatic approach. In Re McElroy (Deceased) [2023] EWHC 109 (Ch), the court dismissed a claim because even if it succeeded, recovery of distributed assets itself would inevitably fail on grounds of laches. Courts will not allow pointless litigation to proceed.
4. Delay can result in lost evidence. Delay can seriously undermine the quality of evidence. In James v Scudamore [2023] EWHC 996 (Ch), key witnesses had died and documents were lost, preventing the court from properly assessing the facts. Laches recognises that justice is best served when claims are brought promptly.

Do not delay in bringing a probate claim without proper justification, particularly where legal advice has already been obtained. While taking legal action can feel daunting, waiting too long may result in losing the right to challenge a will altogether, as well as incurring legal costs to no effect.