When Courts Override Wills: Lessons from Three Recent Cases
- CHC Legal
- Mar 16
- 7 min read
Testamentary freedom is a defining feature of English law. In principle, a person may leave their estate to whomever they choose. In practice, that freedom is constrained by:
Statutory intervention, e.g. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Equitable doctrines, e.g. proprietary estoppel
Challenges based on capacity or undue influence
Structural risks, e.g. remarriage
The following cases illustrate how courts have overridden, rewritten, or displaced wills — and why lifetime trust structures often avoid these outcomes entirely.
1. Ilott v The Blue Cross & Others [2017] UKSC 17
A statutory override of a valid will
A widely reported inheritance dispute drew national attention when an estranged adult daughter successfully challenged her late mother’s will, which had left the entire estate to animal charities.
The deceased had deliberately excluded her daughter following a long period of estrangement. In her will, she made clear her intention that her estate should benefit several charities rather than her only child. The daughter had lived independently for many years and had not reconciled with her mother before her death.
Following the mother’s passing, the daughter brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. That legislation allows certain categories of individuals — including children of the deceased — to seek “reasonable financial provision” from an estate if the will (or intestacy rules) fail to provide it.
The Legal Issue
The central question was not whether the will was valid — it was. The issue was whether the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the daughter.
The daughter’s circumstances were modest. She lived in rented accommodation, had limited income, and relied in part on state benefits. She argued that, notwithstanding the estrangement, she should receive some financial provision from her mother’s estate.
The charities opposed the claim, arguing that the mother had consciously chosen to exclude her daughter and that testamentary freedom should be respected.
Court Decisions and Appeal
The case progressed through multiple stages of appeal.
At one stage, the Court of Appeal significantly increased the award made to the daughter, attracting substantial media commentary. The charities then appealed further.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court clarified how courts should approach claims by adult children under the 1975 Act. While it reduced the amount previously awarded, it confirmed that adult children — even independent ones — are not barred from making claims simply because they
are estranged or self-supporting.
Why the Case Matters
The case demonstrates several important principles:
A valid will does not automatically prevent it being questioned and overturned.
Estrangement does not eliminate the possibility of court intervention.
Charitable beneficiaries do not enjoy immunity from challenge.
Courts assess “reasonable provision” in light of financial need and circumstances.
This case lasted from 2004 to 2017 and in that time successive courts ruled first one way and then the other, making the eventual outcome seem more like a lottery than a determinable legal process.
In the end, the final decision did not abolish testamentary freedom, but it reaffirmed that such freedom operates within limits.
Press coverage:
BBC News: "Woman rejected by mother in will wins £164k inheritance"
The Guardian: "Daughter wins £164,000 after decade-long legal battle over will with charities"
Why a lifetime trust might have helped: A discretionary trust created during lifetime is not subject to the 1975 Act, because the Act applies only to the estate passing on death. A lifetime trust could have:
Removed the assets from the probate estate
Prevented a statutory claim
Preserved the testator’s charitable intentions
Important Note: CHC Legal is not suggesting the outcome of this case was either wrong or right. We are only pointing out that the instructions given in a perfectly valid will were not upheld by the courts.
2. Nahajec v Fowle [2017] EW Misc 11 (CC)
Adult child succeeds despite clear exclusion
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 permits the court to intervene where a will fails to make “reasonable financial provision” for certain categories of claimant. That statutory power applies even where the deceased has clearly expressed an intention to exclude a family member.
A notable Court decision illustrates how this principle operates in practice.
The Background
The deceased left an estate worth approximately £265,000. He had three adult children, all of whom were estranged. His will left the entirety of his estate to a long-standing friend, who was also appointed executor.
In a separate letter of wishes, the deceased made clear that he did not intend to benefit his children. He stated that they were financially independent and did not require provision from him.
One son had already brought — and succeeded in — a claim under the 1975 Act. Another son chose not to pursue proceedings.
The remaining claimant was a 31-year-old daughter. She had had little contact with her father for many years, although she had attempted to rebuild the relationship. She applied to the court on the basis that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her.
The Daughter’s Position
The daughter lived modestly and had limited financial resources. She had experienced health difficulties that had led to debt and reliance on tax credits. Her claim was not for a share of the estate in a broad sense, but for a specific sum to enable her to retrain as a veterinary nurse and improve her earning capacity.
She sought an award of approximately £59,000.
The Court’s Analysis
The court examined the statutory factors under the 1975 Act, including:
The financial resources and needs of the applicant
The financial resources and needs of any other beneficiaries
Any obligations or responsibilities owed by the deceased
The size and nature of the estate
Several features influenced the outcome:
The daughter’s financial position was limited and precarious.
There were no competing claims of equivalent weight at that stage.
The executor-beneficiary had not provided a full account of estate funds and had incurred significant expenditure after learning of the claim.
Although there was no ongoing obligation to support the daughter, she remained within the statutory category of “child of the deceased.”
Importantly, the court considered her proposed retraining not as a windfall request, but as relevant to her “maintenance” — a concept interpreted broadly in some 1975 Act cases.
The Decision
The court concluded that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for the
daughter.
While the deceased had believed she was financially independent, the evidence demonstrated that her circumstances were fragile. The statutory test focuses on objective need rather than the deceased’s subjective view.
The court therefore awarded her a sum to assist with retraining and financial stability.
Why This Case Matters
This decision reinforces several structural points relevant to estate planning:
Express disinheritance does not eliminate the risk of a 1975 Act claim.
Estrangement does not prevent an adult child from succeeding.
“Financial independence” is assessed by the court, not by the testator.
Maintenance can include education or retraining in appropriate circumstances.
Press coverage:
Ross Martin: Disputed inheritance: court overrides will
Why a lifetime trust might have helped: A lifetime trust could have:
Removed the assets from the estate
Prevented a 1975 Act claim
Ensured the testator’s chosen beneficiary actually received the assets
Important Note: CHC Legal is not suggesting the outcome of this case was either wrong or right. We are only pointing out that the instructions given in a perfectly valid will were not upheld by the court.
3. Fennessy v Turner & Anor [2022] WTLR 1295
Adult child succeeds; will overridden
Facts of the Case - The parties and family background
Hazel Fennessy died on 2 February 2020. At the time of her death, her only surviving child was her son, Mr Patrick Fennessy, aged 60. He suffered from osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, conditions that significantly limited his mobility and earning capacity.
Hazel had been widowed for many years. Her relationship with Patrick had been intermittent and sometimes strained, but there had been periods of reconciliation, and Patrick maintained that his mother had repeatedly assured him that he would “inherit everything”.
The will and the estate
Hazel’s will left her entire estate to her close friend, Mrs June Turner, who was also appointed as the sole executrix. The estate was valued at a little over £360,000.
The will made no provision for Patrick, despite him being Hazel’s only child and despite the assurances he said she had given him.
The claimant’s circumstances
Patrick’s personal and financial situation was precarious:
He lived in rented accommodation.
He had limited income and was reliant on state benefits.
His disabilities restricted his ability to work.
He had no savings and no realistic prospect of improving his financial position without assistance.
He brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, arguing that Hazel’s will failed to make reasonable financial provision for him.
The defendant’s position
Mrs Turner defended the claim on the basis of testamentary freedom, arguing that:
Hazel had the right to leave her estate to whomever she wished.
Hazel had deliberately chosen not to benefit her son.
Patrick was an adult and therefore not automatically entitled to provision.
She also argued that Hazel had been disappointed by Patrick and had chosen to reward a
loyal friend instead.
Why these facts mattered legally
The court had to consider:
Patrick’s age, health, and earning capacity.
His financial needs, which were significant and ongoing.
The size of the estate, which was large enough to meet his needs without undermining the beneficiary’s position.
The absence of competing claims of equal or greater weight.
The fact that Hazel had given assurances (relevant to moral obligation).
The fact that Patrick was Hazel’s only child, which carries weight in 1975 Act analysis.
These factors placed Patrick squarely within the category of adult children who, despite the high threshold, can succeed where there is “something more” than mere disappointment.
Press coverage:
HCR Law: A landmark adult child case under the Inheritance Act
Why a lifetime trust might have helped: A lifetime trust could have:
Removed the assets from the estate
Prevented a 1975 Act claim
Ensured the testator’s chosen beneficiary actually received the assets
Important Note: CHC Legal is not suggesting the outcome of this case was either wrong or right. We are only pointing out that the instructions given in a perfectly valid will were not upheld by the court.
Key Themes Across These Types of Cases
A properly drafted legal will answers who the testator wants to inherit but it does not answer:
What if someone challenges?
What if promises were made?
What if dependency exists?
What if remarriage intervenes?
What if capacity is disputed?
These are structural risks, not drafting risks.
Conclusion: Why Lifetime Trusts Often Achieve What Wills Cannot
The cases above do not suggest that wills are entirely ineffective. They remain essential and, in most cases, they do work. BUT Testamentary freedom operates within legal and equitable constraints.
Where long‑term certainty, inter‑generational planning, or protection from challenge is important, a lifetime trust often provides:
Greater certainty
Protection from 1975 Act claims
Protection from estoppel claims
Protection from remarriage risks
Reduced litigation exposure
Privacy (no probate)
A will expresses wishes – and once the donor (testator) is dead, they may be followed or not.
A trust implements wishes – and does so while the donor (settlor) is still alive to see it done.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Comments