Will Challenge Defeated by Defence of Laches

A person may challenge the validity of a Will if they believe the document does not reflect the true intentions of a deceased person. Common grounds include lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval, undue influence, fraud or improper execution in accordance with the prescribed legal formalities. These challenges often lead to complex litigation and whilst there is no statutory time limit to submit a claim, claims must be brought in a timely manner as delay can be fatal to a claim.

Laches is an equitable defence that, if allowed, bars a claim where the claimant has unreasonably delayed pursuing their claim and that delay has caused prejudice to the defendant. It focuses on fairness rather than fixed time limits, reinforcing the need to take prompt action in probate disputes. The recent case of Bowerman v Bowerman and others[1] demonstrates the impact of such a defence.

This case concerned a bitter family dispute over the validity of two wills executed in 1999 by John and Jean Bowerman and was pursued by Alastair, one of their three sons. Following John’s debilitating stroke in 1994, John and Jean revised their earlier 1988 wills, which had provided for equal treatment of their three sons—Alastair, Ben, and David. The 1999 wills instead left the farming business to Ben and the residuary estate to the surviving spouse, significantly altering previous arrangements. Alastair challenged both wills decades later on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval and undue influence. Ben, the principal beneficiary, defended the claim and argued that Alastair’s prolonged delay of over 18 years should prevent the challenge under the equitable doctrine of laches.

In considering the evidence submitted, the Court found that John lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 1999 Will due to severe illness and heart failure and therefore did not know and approve its contents. For Jean’s will, there was no issue of capacity; the Court held that she understood and approved its provisions after detailed discussions with her solicitor. Allegations of undue influence failed. While Jean’s diaries revealed anxiety and occasional conflict, they were not sufficient to show coercion to overbear her free will. At first glance, it would be expected that the Court would therefore declare John’s Will invalid whilst finding that Jean’s Will was valid.

The Court however held that the challenge was barred by laches due to the 18 year delay after John’s death. The claimant knew the contents of the 1999 wills in 1999 and expressly denied any intention to contest them during a meeting in 2004. Despite obtaining legal advice over many years, the claimant took no action and the Court found no credible explanation for the delay. The executors on the other hand had relied on the claimant’s lack of action to administer John’s estate, creating a detrimental reliance. Allowing the claim would have served no useful purpose as any recovery would fail on laches grounds as it would be inequitable. The Court therefore pronounced both 1999 wills valid in solemn form.

This case demonstrates the impact of laches and reinforces the need to bring probate claims in a timely manner. Whilst the Court found one of the Will’s challenged would have been invalid, the claimant was denied any action as a result due to the defence of laches defeating any remedy being equitable.

[1] [2025] EWHC 2947 (Ch)