Larke v Nugus Requests: Powerful, misunderstood and easily mishandled 

Few areas of contentious probate generate as much confusion as Larke v Nugus requests. 

For those involved in Will disputes, a properly drafted Larke v Nugus request can be an invaluable tool in investigating the circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of a Will. Equally, for solicitors and Will writers receiving such requests, understanding what may be properly disclosed, what should be withheld or redacted and the potential consequences of failing to engage properly is crucial. 

Recent cases have highlighted both the practical force of these requests and the risks that can arise when they are ignored, delayed, answered inadequately or treated as routine administration. Perhaps more importantly, these decisions demonstrate why specialist advice should be sought both before making a Larke v Nugus request and before responding to one. 

Where the principle comes from 

The name itself comes from a real dispute. Arthur Larke was one of two executors of the estate of Elsie Moss, and he was also the solicitor who had prepared her final Will. That Will left her estate to her carers, Mr and Mrs Lucas, who had been working for her for less than four months before her death, in place of an earlier Will that had favoured her niece. 

When the Court of Appeal heard the resulting dispute in 1979, it endorsed guidance the Law Society had first issued back in 1959. That guidance, now reflected in Law Society guidance, is that where a serious dispute arises as to the validity of a will, beyond the mere entering of a caveat, and the solicitor’s knowledge makes them a material witness, the solicitor should make available a statement of their evidence regarding the execution of the will and the circumstances surrounding it.  This applies to anyone concerned in proving or challenging that Will, regardless of whether the solicitor acted for those propounding it. 

That is the origin of what practitioners now call a Larke v Nugus request. It is, in essence, a request for relevant information from the solicitor, Will writer or other professional involved in preparing or executing a Will, made so that a properly arguable challenge can be investigated before formal litigation starts. 

The intention behind it is a sensible one. If relevant information can be obtained at an early stage, unnecessary litigation may be avoided, costs can be reduced and the parties can make informed decisions about the merits of any challenge. Typical enquiries might relate to the instructions received from the testator, who was present at meetings, concerns regarding capacity, the execution of the Will, attendance notes and file records material to the dispute, earlier Will instructions where relevant and the steps taken to assess potential undue influence or knowledge and approval. 

However, not every disappointed family member is automatically entitled to raise Larke v Nugus enquiries. 

The first question: Do you have standing? 

This is frequently overlooked. 

A person cannot challenge the validity of a Will simply because they dislike its contents or are unhappy with their inheritance. A challenge has to rest on one of a small number of recognised legal grounds, most commonly a lack of testamentary capacity on the part of the person making the Will, undue influence exerted over them, a failure to properly know and approve the contents of the Will, or a defect in the way it was executed. 

Before sending Larke v Nugus enquiries, careful consideration should be given to whether the individual has a legitimate interest in challenging the validity of the Will in the first place. Typically, this means they would benefit under an earlier Will or under the intestacy rules if the challenged Will were set aside. A claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is different: it does not challenge the validity of the will, although the surrounding will file may sometimes contain information relevant to a separate 1975 Act analysis. 

If a person cannot ultimately challenge the validity of the Will, there may be little justification for requiring the Will drafter to provide detailed validity information regarding the preparation process. In practice, there are occasions when individuals seek Larke v Nugus information in the hope that they may discover some basis for a challenge. That approach can be problematic. The request should identify the specific concern being investigated and why the information sought is relevant to that concern. 

Addison v Niaz [2024] EWHC 3124 (Fam) 

The recent case of Addison & Anor v Niaz [2024] EWHC 3124 (Fam) demonstrates just how powerful these enquiries can become. 

The applicants were two of the deceased’s children. They were concerned about the later will and pursued information from the solicitor who had taken instructions for and drafted it. A Larke v Nugus request was sent, but the response was delayed and was ultimately regarded as inadequate. What followed is something that many practitioners are unaware remains available. 

The claimants utilised section 122 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and sought a summons requiring the Will drafter to attend court and answer questions regarding the preparation of the Will. That power should not be underestimated Section 122 allows the High Court, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has knowledge of a testamentary document, to order that person to attend to be examined in open court. The court may require answers to questions relating to the document and, where appropriate, require the person to bring in the document. Failure to attend, answer or produce a document when required may amount to contempt of court. For a solicitor or Will writer, being required to attend court to answer questions under oath about a disputed Will can be a highly unwelcome development. 

The judgment also touched on a point that many solicitors get wrong in practice. The court recorded that it is good practice to obtain the executors’ consent because privilege and confidentiality pass to the personal representatives, but the respondent’s delayed and inadequate engagement was not excused by simply saying that executor consent was needed. A safer practical message is that the will drafter should not ignore the request while consent is sought: they should acknowledge it, identify any authority or privilege issue, take prompt steps to obtain any necessary consent, and explain the position clearly to the requesting party. The case serves as a reminder that ignoring a properly justified Larke v Nugus request can have significant consequences. Importantly, by the time the matter came before the court, much of the requested information had ultimately been produced. The dispute therefore became largely one about costs. The applicants sought £9,290.30 in total. The court ordered the respondent to pay £5,729.40 after reducing the amount claimed as not entirely proportionate and reasonable.  

Whilst that was considerably less than the amount claimed, the outcome nevertheless demonstrated that a failure to engage properly with Larke v Nugus enquiries can have real financial consequences. 

From a practical perspective, it is generally sensible to provide the Will drafter with an opportunity to respond before pursuing more formal remedies. 

A carefully drafted request identifying the concerns, explaining the basis for the challenge and setting out precisely what information is sought will often produce a constructive response. However, where a recipient ignores correspondence or repeatedly delays matters without justification, the Addison decision demonstrates that more robust options may be available. 

Dahlman v Oxley & Anor [2025] EWHC 2962 (Ch) 

A different issue arose in Dahlman v Oxley & Anor [2025] EWHC 2962 (Ch). 

The case concerned a challenge to the validity of a Will together with requests for information and disclosure relating to its preparation. Instead of pursuing examination under section 122 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the claimant pursued a pre-action disclosure application after information was not forthcoming. The Second Respondents were the partners in Palmers Solicitors Kingston Upon Thames LLP, who were executors of the estate under the challenged will. The judgment records that the contemplated litigation concerned the will and that the application ultimately focused on disclosure of the will file and costs. 

As sometimes happens, shortly before the hearing the relevant information and Will preparation file were eventually provided. The substantive dispute largely disappeared, leaving the court to determine who should bear the costs. That gave rise to an interesting conflict between two well-established principles. 

In pre-action disclosure applications, the starting point under CPR 46.1 is that the person against whom the order is sought will usually be awarded their costs of the application and of complying with any order. However, the court may make a different order having regard to all the circumstances, including whether it was reasonable to oppose the application and whether the parties complied with any relevant pre-action protocol. On the other hand, personal representatives are normally entitled to an indemnity from the estate for costs properly incurred in administering the estate. The critical words are properly incurred. 

Ultimately, the court made no order as to costs. The delayed and unexplained failure to provide the will file pushed the court towards an applicant’s costs order, but the applicant’s own correspondence had represented that costs would not be sought if the file was provided voluntarily. Those factors balanced out. The court separately held that the respondents’ costs should not be recovered from the estate because it was unreasonable to have resisted the request for so long.  The case demonstrates that costs arguments in probate disputes can become every bit as important as the substantive issues themselves, and that neither of the usual costs assumptions can be relied upon automatically once a Larke v Nugus request escalates into court proceedings. 

The most common mistake: Disclosing too much 

A significant misconception persists within the profession regarding what should actually be disclosed in response to a Larke v Nugus request. 

Historically, some practitioners have proceeded on the basis that the entire file should simply be copied and disclosed. That approach can be dangerous if done indiscriminately. The purpose of a Larke v Nugus response is to full and frank information relevant to the validity of the will and the circumstances surrounding its preparation and execution, while still protecting privilege, confidentiality, irrelevant material and third-party personal data. Particular care should be exercised in relation to letters of wishes, discretionary trust memoranda, statements explaining why particular trusts were created, information relevant only to potential Inheritance Act claims, documents containing information unrelated to testamentary capacity, undue influence, knowledge and approval or execution, and sensitive information regarding third parties. The fact that a document exists on the Will file does not automatically mean it should be disclosed. 

Don’t forget GDPR 

Data protection obligations remain highly relevant. 

Will files often contain personal and sensitive information concerning family members and third parties. Examples might include references to medical conditions, addiction issues, family disputes, allegations of financial misconduct or deeply personal information which has nothing to do with the validity of the Will itself. Disclosure of such information without proper consideration can create significant problems. 

In many cases, redactions may be necessary. In others, certain documents may simply fall outside the scope of what should properly be disclosed. Careful consideration should therefore always be given to UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and confidentiality obligations before any response is sent. Redaction may be appropriate where the file contains personal data of living third parties or special category data which is not necessary for the request being answered.  

Specialist advice should be obtained 

Both Addison and Dahlman demonstrate that Larke v Nugus requests are not administrative formalities. 

For those seeking information, there must be careful consideration of whether there is a genuine basis for challenging the Will and whether the request is properly justified. For those receiving a request, careful consideration must be given to what can properly be disclosed, what should be withheld or redacted, whether authority is needed from personal representatives, issues of privilege, confidentiality, UK GDPR and the potential costs consequences of refusing or delaying engagement. 

Getting that balance wrong can be expensive. 

How Coodes Solicitors can help 

At Coodes Solicitors, our specialist Inheritance and Trust Disputes team regularly advises beneficiaries, executors, trustees, solicitors and Will writers in relation to disputed Wills and Larke v Nugus requests. 

Whether you are seeking information about the preparation of a Will, considering a challenge to validity or responding to detailed disclosure requests, obtaining specialist advice at an early stage can help avoid costly mistakes. 

Similarly, if you are a solicitor or Will drafter who has received a Larke v Nugus request and are unsure what information can properly be disclosed, what requires consent or redaction, and how to respond proportionately and promptly, 

A carefully considered response can avoid unnecessary litigation. An ill-considered one can create it. 

If you are considering challenging the validity of a Will, are a solicitor or Will drafter who has received a Larke v Nugus request or require guidance regarding what information can properly be disclosed, what requires consent or redaction, and how to respond proportionately and promptly, contact the specialist Inheritance and Trust Disputes team at Coodes Solicitors for expert advice. Early specialist input can often avoid significant costs and complications later. 

About the Author: Hayley Gaffney is a Partner in the Inheritance and Trust Disputes team at Coodes Solicitors. She specialises in contested Wills, probate disputes, executor disputes, Inheritance Act claims, proprietary estoppel claims and all aspects of inheritance and trust litigation. 

Get in touch: hayley.gaffney@coodes.co.uk   01872246200