No Contest Clauses in a Will: Do They Work in England and Wales?

A no contest clause says that anyone who challenges your will loses what the will leaves them. The courts in England and Wales do treat them as valid. But a clause only puts off someone who has something to lose, it has to be drafted with care, and it cannot stop a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975.

What is a no contest clause?

It is a condition attached to the gifts in your will. If a beneficiary challenges the will, they are treated as if the will had left them nothing. The idea is to make a challenge expensive for the person bringing it, so that fewer people try.

You may have seen them in American films and TV dramas, where they are common. They are much less usual here. In a recent case the High Court described one as "fairly unusual".

Are no contest clauses legal in England and Wales?

Yes. In Patel v O'Sullivan (2026) a mother's will contained a wide no contest clause. Nobody argued that it was invalid. The judge still checked, and said he "sought reassurance about the legal position" and obtained it from an earlier High Court decision, Nathan v Leonard (2002). He went on to uphold the will.

Being legal is not the same as being effective, though. Whether a clause actually works depends on how it is written, what it covers, and what the person challenging stands to lose.

What can a clause cover?

The clause in the Patel will is a good example of a wide one. It applied to anyone who would otherwise benefit and who:

• Challenges the will. Starts proceedings "to set aside or contest the validity" of the will or any part of it.
• Objects to probate. Lodges a formal objection to the issuing of a grant of representation.
• Brings a proprietary estoppel claim against the estate.
• Claims under the Inheritance Act 1975. Asks the court for reasonable financial provision from the estate.

Anyone who did any of those things was to be "excluded from receiving any benefit" under the will, and the will was to take effect "as if no provision had been made" for them.

What does a clause need in order to work?

• A gift worth keeping. The clause can only take away what the will gives. Someone left nothing has nothing to lose, so the clause does not affect them at all.
• Clear wording about what counts as a challenge. List the steps that trigger it, as the Patel clause did. Vague wording invites a second argument about whether the clause applies.
• A clear answer to where the gift goes instead. The Patel clause said the will should take effect as if the challenger had been left nothing. When a district judge applied it, the challenger's gifts were to go into the residue for the residuary beneficiary. That order was later set aside on other grounds.
• A will-maker who understands it. In Patel the daughter argued that her mother, whose first language was Gujarati, could not have understood the clause. The solicitor's note recorded that he explained it "in basic terms", and the judge accepted that this was enough.
• A will that is valid. The clause is part of the will. It only bites if the will stands. In Patel the court said the other side could rely on it "on the basis that the Will before the Court is valid".

Can a no contest clause stop an Inheritance Act claim?

No. Under section 1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, certain people can ask the court for reasonable financial provision from your estate. They are:

• Your spouse or civil partner.
• A former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried or formed a new civil partnership.
• A partner who lived with you as a couple for the whole of the two years before your death.
• Your children.
• Anyone treated as a child of the family.
• Anyone you were maintaining, wholly or partly, just before your death.

That right comes from the Act, not from your will, so no wording in the will can remove it. The court then weighs the factors in section 3 of the Act, including the size of the estate, everyone's needs and resources, and "the conduct of the applicant or any other person".

What a clause can do is take away the claimant's gift under the will, if it is drafted to cover Inheritance Act claims, as the Patel clause was. That may make someone think twice. It does not stop them applying, or stop the court making an award.

What are the drawbacks?

• It does nothing to someone you have left out. The people most likely to challenge are often the ones who got least, and they have nothing to lose.
• It can deter a fair challenge too. A beneficiary with genuine worries about how the will was made may stay quiet rather than risk their gift.
• It does not stop the arguing. The Patel family spent years in court, with about 20 interim orders, despite the clause.
• It can look harsh. The appeal judge in Patel called one result of applying it "rather stark, and possibly harsh".
• An unusual clause can raise questions. In Patel the clause marked "a significant departure" from the mother's earlier will, and the challenger used it to question whether her mother understood what she was signing.
• It needs careful drafting. The trigger, the gift over and the interaction with the rest of the will all have to work together. This is not a clause to copy from a template.

What else can you do?

A no contest clause works best alongside the steps that make a will hard to challenge in the first place. Give your instructions on your own, make sure someone records what you said and why, and explain an uneven split in a letter of wishes. In Patel, the solicitor's notes and recordings of the mother's own words helped the will survive. See protecting your will from a challenge and the main grounds for challenging a will.

If you are thinking about a clause like this, it is worth talking it through with a solicitor so the wording does what you want. Book a call with one of our solicitors, or read about how our solicitor consultation works.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Whether a no contest clause is right for you, and how it should be worded, depends on your family and your estate. Please get in touch for advice on your own situation.

Sources

• Patel v O'Sullivan [2026] EWHC 801 (Ch) on Find Case Law, The National Archives. The trial judgment, 2 April 2026. The clause is set out at [36] and the reference to Nathan v Leonard is at [37].
• Patel v O'Sullivan [2025] EWHC 3326 (Ch) on Find Case Law, The National Archives. The appeal judgment, 19 December 2025.
• Patel v O'Sullivan [2026] EWHC 801 (Ch) on BAILII
• Patel v O'Sullivan [2025] EWHC 3326 (Ch) on BAILII
• Nathan v Leonard [2002] EWHC 1701 (Ch) on BAILII
• Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 1 on legislation.gov.uk
• Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, section 3 on legislation.gov.uk