16/05/2026
Interesting to contrast recent unsuccessful undue influence challenges with claims brought on entirely different grounds.
Where undue influence is alleged, the court requires compelling evidence of coercion sufficient to overpower the testator’s own free will. That remains an exceptionally high bar.
By contrast, some recent English cases involving adult children have succeeded not because the will was invalid, but because the court considered that reasonable financial provision had not been made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The distinction is important:
• a disappointed beneficiary does not automatically establish undue influence or lack of capacity; but
• in England & Wales, certain adult children and dependants may still seek financial provision even where a will itself is valid.
These claims still tend to turn heavily on clear financial need and the competing claims of other beneficiaries, particularly a surviving spouse. The English court’s role is discretionary and corrective rather than redistributive.
By contrast, Scots law operates through legal rights, giving spouses/civil partners and children fixed entitlements to part of an estate.
The long-established Banks v Goodfellow test for testamentary capacity nevertheless remains central in both jurisdictions.
Interesting comparisons between:
https://todayswillsandprobate.co.uk/sons-will-challenge-fails-in-case-which-should-never-have-been-brought/
https://todayswillsandprobate.co.uk/daughter-awarded-123000-reasonable-provision-after-being-excluded-from-fathers-will/
and
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/emma-mcdaniel-mark-talbot-thatcham-b2876989.html
A disinherited son’s application to have his father’s will overturned due to undue influence from his partner has been rejected. Jonathan Saville Thurston (pictured) claimed a 2019 will made by his father, John Saville Thurston, which left his entire £500,000 estate to his partner Hannah Shabat...
