Fairness isn’t enough: What really decides contentious probate claims 

Inheritance disputes are more common than many families expect, and they often arise at a time of heightened emotion and uncertainty. When a Will feels unfair, it is natural to assume that sense of injustice will carry weight. Here, Associate Hayley Gaffney, specialist in contentious probate at Coodes, explores why fairness alone is rarely enough, and what really determines the outcome of a dispute. 

When people first speak to me about contesting a Will, the conversation often begins with a simple, heartfelt statement: “It’s just not fair.” I understand why. Inheritance disputes sit at the intersection of money, memory and grief, and fairness matters deeply in families. 

But one of the hardest truths about contentious probate is this: fairness alone does not decide cases. Judges are not asked to resolve family history or rebalance emotional wrongs. They are required to apply the law to the evidence put before them. 

Understanding that gap between what feels fair and what the court can actually decide is often the difference between a realistic claim and a costly disappointment. 

What people expect to matter 

Many clients begin with reasons that feel compelling and, on a human level, entirely reasonable. They may have provided years of care and support and believe that contribution should be recognised. They may rely on assurances or common understandings or assumptions that felt certain at the time. Sometimes there is a strong sense of shared family understanding about what a parent ‘always intended’, or shock that one person appears to have inherited everything. 

All of these factors form part of the background to a dispute, and they should not be dismissed. But they are not, on their own, what determines whether a claim will succeed. The court’s focus is narrower and more exacting. 

What courts actually decide 

When you are living through a bereavement, it is completely natural to view a Will through the lens of what feels right: who was there, who helped, what was promised, and what the family always assumed would happen. But the court has to approach the same situation differently. 

A judge is not deciding what would have been the kindest outcome, or trying to untangle decades of family history. Instead, they apply a series of legal tests to the evidence. Those tests are designed to answer quite specific questions. 

Sometimes the issue is whether the Will is valid at all. If there are concerns about the person who made the Will, the court may look at capacity. In everyday terms, that means asking whether they understood what they were doing when they signed (ie, that they were making a Will, what they owned, and who might reasonably expect to benefit). 

Another common concern is pressure. Families often describe a situation where one person became increasingly involved, conversations were controlled, other relatives were kept at a distance, and the Will changed in a way that seems out of character. Where the question is whether someone was forced into making a Will they did not truly want, the legal term is undue influence. It is important to be clear about what this means. Undue influence is not simply persuasion, disagreement or even a difficult family relationship. The court is looking for evidence of coercion so serious that it overrode the testator’s free will. 

The court will also consider whether the Will was properly signed and witnessed, and whether the person making it knew and approved its contents. This becomes especially relevant where the Will is unusual, where the testator was vulnerable, or where someone else was heavily involved in giving instructions. 

Not all inheritance disputes are about whether a Will is valid. Some are about whether it makes adequate provision. Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 are not based on proving wrongdoing. They focus on whether certain categories of people, such as a spouse, civil partner, cohabiting partner, child or dependant, have been left reasonable financial provision in the circumstances. 

So while fairness may be the reason a family reaches out for advice, the court’s decision will usually come down to something more specific: whether the Will was valid, whether there was coercion, whether the process was sound, or whether the claimant requires greater financial provision. 

The evidence that changes outcomes 

The difference between a strong case and a weak one often lies in the quality and timing of the evidence available. Courts tend to place the greatest weight on documents created at the time decisions were being made, rather than on memories shaped by grief or anger years later. 

Solicitors’ files, GP records, care notes, capacity assessments, emails and text messages can all help to build a clear picture of what was happening and why. Financial records are also crucial, particularly where there are questions about dependency, payment for care or unexplained transactions. 

Consistency matters as much as content. Independent witnesses who can give a coherent, aligned account are usually far more persuasive than highly emotional evidence that changes over time. Equally, the quality of the process surrounding the Will can be decisive. Independent legal advice, statements from the testator in their own words explaining their reasoning, private meetings without beneficiaries present and careful record-keeping all strengthen the credibility of decisions that may later be challenged. 

Cost, risk and realism 

One of the most important parts of our job is helping clients understand not only whether they feel wronged, but whether they have a claim that can be proved and has sufficient merit. 

Contentious probate cases can become expensive very quickly, particularly where families become entrenched and the dispute develops into a wider battle about past behaviour. That is why an early, honest assessment matters. Strong feelings do not automatically mean a strong case. A case with limited evidence may still be worth pursuing, but it needs to be approached with clear eyes and a realistic strategy. 

This is also why mediation is so central to inheritance disputes. Mediation is a structured meeting, led by an independent mediator, where the parties try to reach a settlement without the cost and stress of a final court trial. It is not about backing down or ‘giving in’. It is often the most sensible and controlled way to resolve a dispute, especially where the estate needs to be protected from escalating legal costs, or where family relationships still matter. 

Even where a case is strong, mediation can allow a family to reach an outcome sooner, privately, and with more flexibility on the parameters for resolution than a judge may be able to offer. 

Strengthening your position early 

If you are considering bringing a claim, timing and restraint are important. Some claims are subject to strict deadlines, and evidence can be lost surprisingly quickly. Preserving documents, messages and records, and keeping communications measured, can protect your position more than any impassioned argument. 

If you are an executor or beneficiary facing a challenge, early advice is equally important. Pausing distributions, gathering the relevant paper trail and taking a calm, process-led approach can help protect both the estate and your own position. 

Looking beyond fairness 

Fairness matters enormously in families. But in contentious probate, proof decides cases. If you are weighing up whether to challenge or defend a Will, focusing on evidence, understanding the legal framework you are operating within, and seeking specialist advice early can make all the difference. 

If you would value an honest, practical assessment of your position, whether as a claimant, executor or beneficiary, Coodes’ Inheritance Disputes team is here to help. We offer clear, confidential advice focused on outcomes, not arguments.