To understand how best to avoid disputes, you do need to know a little about the Law concerned:
Why robust discussions — and a proper family tree — matter more than ever
One of the first things I insist on when writing a Will is a proper family tree.
Not because I enjoy paperwork, but because experience has taught me that most inheritance disputes are not caused by bad intentions. They are caused by assumptions, missing conversations, and advisers who never really understood the family dynamics in the first place.
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”) exists to correct unfairness after death. But once a claim is made, the damage is already done: costs escalate, relationships fracture, and estates shrink rapidly.
Good planning is about reducing the risk of claims, not just producing a technically valid Will.
What the 1975 Act actually does (in plain English)
In England & Wales, you are generally free to leave your estate to whomever you choose. However, that freedom is not absolute.
The 1975 Act allows certain people to ask the Court to rewrite the financial outcome of a Will if they believe they have not been “reasonably provided for”.
If the Court agrees, it can order assets to be redistributed — regardless of what the Will says.
Will Disputes are increasing — and not just from spouses
In practice, claims are increasingly brought by:
- Adult children
- Step-children
- Former spouses
- Unmarried partners
- Financial dependants
Modern families are complex. Second marriages, blended families, long-term cohabitation, estrangement, informal support arrangements — all of these matter enormously under the 1975 Act.
This is exactly why I will not write a Will properly without understanding who exists, who depends on whom, and who might feel unfairly treated later.
Who can claim under the Inheritance Act?
The list of potential applicants is much broader than many people expect. It includes:
- A spouse or civil partner
- A former spouse or civil partner (unless remarried)
- A cohabiting partner (and who is and is not a partner is very open to dispute)
- A child of the deceased
- A step-child or anyone treated as a child of the family
- Anyone being financially maintained by the deceased
Intestacy rules are rigid. The 1975 Act is not. But disputes are INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE, especially of you go to Court.
If someone believes they should have been provided for, the Court can listen.
“Reasonable provision” — the dangerous grey area
There is no fixed definition of reasonable provision.
For spouses, the Court looks at what is reasonable in all the circumstances.
For others, the test is whether provision is needed for maintenance.
When deciding, the Court considers factors such as:
- The financial needs and resources of all parties
- The obligations and responsibilities the deceased had
- The size and nature of the estate
- Any disabilities
- Conduct and behaviour
This is why vague or badly thought-through Wills are so dangerous. The Court fills in the gaps — at great expense.
Why I insist on a family tree
A family tree is not a formality. It is a risk-management tool.
It helps identify:
- Forgotten children or step-children
- Financially dependent adults
- Estranged relatives with a potential claim
- Competing expectations between families
- Unspoken promises or assumptions
Without this discussion, Wills are written in the dark.
Things that commonly go wrong (and often lead to claims)
This is where poor advice causes real harm:
1. “Everything to my spouse — they’ll sort it out”
Often followed by:
- A remarriage
- A new Will
- Disinherited children
- A 1975 Act claim
2. Step-children treated informally
“I helped raise them, but didn’t legally adopt them” is a classic trigger for disputes.
3. Lifetime gifts misunderstood
Parents assume past help “counts”. The Court may see it very differently.
4. Estranged children ignored without explanation
Estrangement does not automatically defeat a claim — especially if needs exist.
5. Trusts used without explanation
Trusts can protect — or provoke — claims depending on how and why they are used.
6. Cheap or rushed Wills
Tick-box Wills often fail to record reasoning, discussion, or warnings given — which leaves the estate exposed.
Can you prevent claims entirely? No. But you can reduce the risk.
Clear conversations
Surprises fuel disputes. Explaining decisions in advance can reduce shock and resentment.
Letters of wishes/statements of reasons
These are invaluable if a claim arises. Courts want to know why decisions were made.
Sensible use of trusts
Discretionary trusts, life interest trusts, and outright gifts all have different risk profiles. One size does not fit all.
Beware anti-avoidance rules
The Court can look back at gifts made up to six years before death if they appear designed to defeat a claim — even if that was not the sole motive.
Final thoughts
The 1975 Act is not a loophole — it is a safety net. But once it is engaged, estates suffer.
Most claims arise not from greed, but from:
- Poor conversations
- Incomplete information
- Inadequate advice
A robust discussion at the outset — including a proper family tree — is one of the most effective ways to protect your wishes, your beneficiaries, and your estate.
If an adviser does not ask difficult questions, the Court eventually will.
See also: Predatory Marriage Common Law Spouse