Deliberate Exclusions

Last verified: January 2026 (England & Wales)

You want to leave someone out of your Will. Sometimes it’s obvious why. Sometimes it’s complicated, painful, or simply about fairness across a blended family.

In England and Wales, you generally can choose who inherits. But the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 means certain people may still be able to bring a claim if they believe the Will (or intestacy) fails to make “reasonable financial provision”.

Excluding someone is allowed. Preventing a claim is not something any Will can guarantee. The goal is to reduce risk and strengthen your position.

Quick-read summary

• You can leave someone out of your Will, but some people may still be eligible to claim under the 1975 Act.
• The court does not “rewrite your Will because it feels unfair”. It looks at legal eligibility, needs, and the overall circumstances.
• Spouses/civil partners are treated differently from adult children (different legal tests and expectations).
• Risk rises where someone was financially dependent, vulnerable, or where the Will conflicts with what the family reasonably expected.
• A well-prepared plan usually includes clear drafting, a strong paper trail (done carefully), and joined-up planning across pensions, life insurance and property.
• If you are excluding someone, we will guide you through a practical, calm process to reduce dispute risk and keep your wishes on track.

Did you know? Key facts you should understand first

Who can sometimes claim?

This can include a spouse/civil partner, former spouse/civil partner (in limited circumstances), a long-term cohabiting partner, children (including adult children), someone treated as a “child of the family”, and anyone financially maintained by you.

How long do they usually have?

A claim is usually issued within 6 months of the Grant of Probate. Late claims may be possible, but only with the court’s permission.

What does “reasonable financial provision” mean?

• For a spouse/civil partner, the court can look more broadly at what is reasonable in the circumstances (often compared with divorce-style fairness).
• For adult children and most other applicants, it is usually limited to what is reasonable for maintenance (not “because I expected it”).

Can you reduce the risk of a claim?

You can often reduce risk, but you cannot eliminate it. The aim is to (1) make the plan coherent and defensible, and (2) avoid avoidable triggers like ambiguity, surprises, and loose ends.

Common scenarios where exclusions come up

1) Estrangement or long-running family conflict

You may feel that someone has already had support, caused harm, or has chosen not to be part of your life. Excluding them may feel like the only fair outcome.

What matters legally is not who is “right”, but whether the person is eligible to claim, what their needs are, and what the wider circumstances show.

2) Divorce, separation, or “we’re not finished sorting it yet”

People often assume a divorce automatically ends all claims. It might not.

Where the relationship status and finances are still evolving, exclusions need careful handling so the Will fits with the real legal picture (and with any existing court orders).

3) Adult children who are financially secure

Some clients want to prioritise a spouse, a vulnerable beneficiary, or grandchildren, particularly where adult children are already settled.

This can be sensible planning, but it must be framed carefully. “They’re doing fine” is not, on its own, a magic shield against a claim.

4) A person with addictions, instability, or safeguarding concerns

Sometimes the concern is not whether someone should benefit, but how they should benefit safely, without harm or exploitation.

In those situations, the decision is not always “in or out”. It can be “how do we do this in a controlled way”.

In practice, many disputes start because the plan is unclear or inconsistent, not because the decision was inherently wrong.

What tends to increase dispute risk (and what tends to reduce it)

No two families are identical, but these patterns come up again and again.

What can increase risk

• Leaving out a spouse/civil partner (or long-term cohabitant) with a genuine housing/income need.
• A vulnerable person being excluded without any coherent alternative provision.
• Ambiguity: unclear drafting, missing definitions, or “handshake understandings”.
• A big mismatch between lifetime messaging (“this will all be yours”) and the Will.
• Executors being surprised and unprepared, leading to messy handling and escalation.

What can reduce risk

• A plan that is coherent across the Will, property, pensions, and life cover.
• Clear drafting that leaves little room for argument about what you meant.
• A calm, well-judged explanation of your reasoning (handled professionally).
• Where appropriate, a structured alternative (for example, controlled provision rather than a direct gift).
• Early family conversation in the right cases (not always, but sometimes it’s the best dispute prevention tool).

Common misconceptions

“If I write ‘I exclude X’ they can’t do anything.”

They may still be able to bring a claim if they fall within an eligible category.

“If I leave them £1, they can’t challenge.”

A token gift does not prevent a claim. In some cases it can even inflame matters.

“If I tell my executors my reasons verbally, that’s enough.”

Executors often need clear, usable information. Verbal explanations get lost, and they can be misunderstood or disputed.

“Courts always side with children.”

Not true. Adult-child claims can fail, and costs consequences can be severe. The outcome depends on facts, eligibility and needs.

How we approach deliberate exclusions (without drama)

When exclusions are handled well, the plan feels consistent and defensible. When handled badly, it can trigger delays, costs and family damage.

Our approach is typically:

• Clarify your goals and the real risks (who might claim, and why).
• Design a plan that fits the family reality (not just the paperwork).
• Draft clearly and consistently, aligned to professional standards and checklists.
• Put sensible supporting context in place where it helps, without creating new problems.
• Stress-test the plan against foreseeable dispute angles.

Fern success stories 

These are the kinds of situations we regularly help with. Every family is different and no Will can guarantee a claim won’t be brought, but good planning can reduce risk and strengthen your position.

The estranged adult child and the “surprise Will” risk

A client wanted to exclude an adult child after a long estrangement. The bigger risk was not the decision itself, but the shock factor and ambiguity. We helped the client put a coherent plan in place, tightened the drafting, and ensured the executors had clear, factual context to work with. The result was a Will that was harder to misinterpret and easier to administer calmly.

Blended family priorities without triggering an avoidable dispute

A client wanted the surviving partner to be secure, but ultimately for assets to pass to children from an earlier relationship. We structured the Will so the intent was clear, avoided loose wording that could fuel arguments, and aligned the plan with property and beneficiary arrangements. That consistency typically reduces friction at probate and gives the family fewer angles to contest.

“We’re separated, not divorced” and the hidden claimant problem

A client assumed separation meant an ex-partner was automatically out of the picture. We slowed it down, clarified the legal position, and rebuilt the instructions so the Will matched the real-world circumstances. The benefit was not “claim-proofing”, but avoiding a common trap where assumptions create unnecessary vulnerability.

Vulnerability and safeguarding concerns, but still wanting to “do the right thing”

A client wanted to exclude someone because direct inheritance was likely to be harmful (addiction, instability, or exploitation risk). Instead of a blunt all-or-nothing approach, we explored controlled options and drafted in a way that made the client’s reasoning and intention clearer. Where families are already strained, clarity and structure often reduce escalation.

Most disputes are made worse by unclear drafting, inconsistent planning, and executors being unprepared. The strongest plans are coherent across the Will, property, pensions, and life cover, with clear intent and minimal ambiguity.

Cases

Ilott v Mitson (Supreme Court) – estranged adult child, modest award still possible

A parent left an adult child out entirely. The court ultimately restored a relatively modest award. The key lesson is that exclusion alone does not end the story; the court still looks at needs and circumstances.

Shapton v Seviour – an “absolutely hopeless” claim and the cost risk

An adult child pursued a weak claim and the court took a firm view. The practical lesson: not every claim succeeds, and poor claims can create serious costs exposure.

Nahajec v Fowle – a Letter of Wishes did not prevent a claim

A parent set out clear reasons for excluding children, but a claim still succeeded to a limited extent. The lesson: supporting documents can help explain your reasoning, but they are not a guarantee.

Martin v Williams – cohabiting partner provision vs outdated assumptions

A long-term partner was left out, and the court made provision. The lesson: modern family structures matter, and informal “but we weren’t married” assumptions can be dangerous.

Ball v Ball – the court does not automatically override a Will

A complex family dispute reached court and the claim did not succeed. The lesson: England and Wales does not have forced heirship, and claims are assessed on evidence and statutory factors, not emotion alone.

Howe v Howe – recent example of the court making provision despite an exclusion

An estranged adult child succeeded and was awarded provision. The lesson: vulnerability and genuine need can shift outcomes even where the testator felt exclusion was justified.

Can I disinherit my spouse or civil partner?

You can, but it is one of the highest-risk categories for a claim. If a spouse has housing or income need, the court’s approach can be significantly more interventionist.

Can I disinherit an adult child?

Yes, but an adult child may still claim in some circumstances. The strength of any claim often turns on dependency, need, disability, and the wider family context.

Can stepchildren claim?

Stepchildren do not automatically inherit under intestacy unless adopted, but a stepchild may be able to claim if they were treated as a “child of the family” or financially maintained.

Does a Letter of Wishes stop a claim?

No. It can help explain your reasoning and context, but it does not prevent a claim.

What if we are separated but not divorced?

That situation needs careful handling. Separation alone does not necessarily remove eligibility, and the facts matter.

What is the time limit?

Usually 6 months from the Grant of Probate. Late claims can be possible, but require permission and are fact-sensitive.

Summary table (at a glance)

Further reading (useful next steps)

• Claims against the Estate
• Estate Planning for Blended Families
• Why family meetings matter in estate planning
• Why a professionally written Will matters

If you want the legal background in plain English, you can download our short handout: Inheritance Act 1975 (client handout)

This handout is general information only, not individual advice. If you’re considering an exclusion (or you expect a claim risk), we’ll guide you through the safest structure and wording for your circumstances.

Need help with a deliberate exclusion?

If you already know you want to exclude someone (or you are not sure yet, but you can see the risk), we can guide you through a calm, structured process and build a plan that is clear, defensible, and aligned to your wider estate planning.

This article is general information only, not individual advice.