Inheritance Act Time Limits: Can You Still Make a Claim After the Deadline?

Inheritance Act time limits and late claims

The most important deadline in contentious estate work is the six-month limit under section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Miss it, and you face a significant legal hurdle. But missing that deadline does not automatically end your claim. The courts have discretion to allow late applications. Understanding how that discretion works, and what case law tells us about it, is essential for anyone considering an Inheritance Act time limits challenge.

What the Act actually says

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows certain individuals to claim against an estate. A claim may arise where a will, the intestacy rules, or both fail to make reasonable financial provision. The intestacy rules apply when there is no valid will.

Six categories of person can apply. These are: a surviving spouse or civil partner; a former spouse or civil partner who has not remarried or formed a new civil partnership; a person who lived with the deceased as a spouse or civil partner throughout the two years before death; a child of the deceased; a person treated as a child of the family; and anyone the deceased was maintaining, wholly or partly, immediately before death.

One further rule applies to everyone on that list. The person who died must have been domiciled in England and Wales. Domicile is a legal test and is not always the same as residence. It usually means the country the person regarded as their permanent home. If the person had strong links abroad, take specialist advice.

You must issue your claim at court within six months of the date representation is first taken out. In plain terms, the clock starts when the grant of probate or letters of administration is issued. It does not run from the date of death. Nor does it run from the date you first heard about the death or the will.

You can also start a claim before the grant is issued. Parliament changed the Act in 2014 to allow this. So if the executors are slow to apply for the grant, you do not have to sit and wait for them.

Why the time limit exists

Unlike many civil claims, claims under the 1975 Act must usually be issued within six months of the grant. The short window exists to encourage prompt administration of estates, free from the threat of later legal challenges.

The court also aims to give beneficiaries and personal representatives (the people who administer the estate) a degree of certainty. That certainty matters. A claim cannot be casually commenced years after the deceased died.

Inheritance Act time limits: negotiations do not pause the clock

This point catches many people out. Letters, phone calls and mediation are useful, but none of them stop the clock. Only issuing at court does.

A claim under the Act is not classed as a probate claim. Rule 57.16 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires claimants to use the Part 8 procedure.

What happens if you miss the six-month deadline?

Missing the deadline is serious. However, it is not fatal. Section 4 gives the court a discretion to let a late claim proceed, and that discretion is wide. The Act sets no final longstop, but delay can still weigh heavily against the claimant.

You do not have to prove exceptional circumstances. That is worth saying clearly, because it is a common misunderstanding. In 2019 a High Court judge took a much stricter line and suggested that excusable delay should be measured in weeks. The Court of Appeal overturned him. It held that the six-month limit is not there to punish claimants, and that a judge should not demand a good reason for every delay. Each case turns on its own facts.

A claim brought after the six-month deadline requires the court’s permission. The request for permission is included in the claim itself. The claimant must also explain why the deadline was not met.

The Act gives no guidance on how the court should exercise that discretion. As a result, each case turns on its own facts. However, case law has established a clear framework.

The Re Salmon guidelines

The leading case on extending the six-month deadline is Re Salmon (Deceased) [1981] Ch 167. In Re Salmon, the deceased’s widow issued her claim more than five months after the period expired. She lost. The judge refused permission because the delay was entirely her own fault. However, he set out the factors a court should weigh in future cases, and those factors still apply today.

These principles confirm that the court’s discretion is unfettered but must be exercised judicially, in line with what is right and proper. The burden falls on the applicant. They must show sufficient grounds for the grant of permission to apply out of time.

Re Salmon offered non-binding but persuasive guidelines on the exercise of discretion under section 4. In 2013, the Court of Appeal confirmed in Berger v Berger that those guidelines remain good law. Lady Justice Black drew six principles from Re Salmon and a second case called Re Dennis. She then added a seventh of her own. Together, these seven points are the checklist the courts still work through.

What the courts weigh up: the key factors

The court considers several factors together. No single factor is decisive on its own.

1. Has the applicant acted promptly?

The court must consider whether the claimant acted promptly after the six-month period expired. It will also look at the circumstances in which they sought an extension of time.

2. Does the claim have real merit?

The court will ask whether the claimant has an arguable case for financial provision. They do not have to prove the full claim at this stage. However, a clearly weak claim may lead the court to refuse permission.

3. Has the estate already been distributed?

The court will not want to prejudice existing beneficiaries. Therefore, the extent to which the estate has already been paid out is a significant factor. The further distribution has advanced, the harder it becomes to grant permission.

Section 20 may protect personal representatives from personal liability if they distribute after the six-month period. However, the court may still order a beneficiary to return estate assets or money. Distribution can also make a late application harder because beneficiaries may suffer prejudice.

4. Is there an alternative remedy?

Where another remedy exists, for example a claim against a negligent solicitor who failed to advise about the deadline, the court may refuse permission. This approach protects beneficiaries while leaving the claimant with another route to recover their loss.

5. Did negotiations start within the six months?

This factor often gets overlooked. The court will look at whether you raised your claim with the estate inside the six-month window, even though talking does not stop the clock. Someone who wrote to the executors in month three and then negotiated is in a far better position than someone who said nothing for two years. In other words, early contact counts for something even when it does not count as issuing.

What the case law tells us

The courts have both allowed and refused late claims. The facts of each case matter enormously, so the following examples are worth reading together.

Berger v Berger [2013]: permission refused despite a strong case

In Berger v Berger, the estate exceeded £7 million, with much of it held on trust. Mrs Berger was the deceased’s elderly widow. She applied for permission more than six years after the deadline. She argued that the will and trusts did not make reasonable financial provision for her.

Despite the potential merits, the Court of Appeal refused permission. The substantial delay, and the history of events since the death, counted decisively against her. Notably, the estate had not been fully distributed at that point. Even so, the court refused. This case illustrates a clear principle: strong merits alone are not enough.

McNulty v McNulty [2002]: permission granted despite three-and-a-half years’ delay

In McNulty v McNulty, permission was granted despite a three-and-a-half-year delay. The true value of the estate had been withheld from the claimant. On discovering the truth, she issued a claim immediately. The courts have accepted deliberate concealment as a legitimate explanation for delay.

Cowan v Foreman [2019]: Court of Appeal reverses a refusal

In Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336, the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision and granted permission to bring a claim 17 months out of time.

The parties had been engaged in pre-action correspondence and had made a standstill agreement while they negotiated. The first instance judge set aside that agreement and refused permission. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Re Salmon principles. It found that the first instance judge had erred by focusing too narrowly on delay and merits, while ignoring the other Re Salmon factors. The Court also dealt with standstill agreements. These are agreements where both sides agree to hold off while they negotiate.

Here the Court of Appeal was careful, and this is widely misreported. It did not rule that standstill agreements are binding. In fact, it held the opposite. Only the court can extend the six-month period, so an agreement between the parties cannot tie its hands.

However, Lady Justice Asplin added a practical point. Where both sides have lawyers, a court is unlikely to refuse to endorse the approach. She also said that negotiating should be encouraged over rushing to court. Lady Justice King added that any agreement must be drafted clearly and must include everyone who might be a party.

In short, a standstill agreement helps your position, but it does not guarantee it. You still take a risk. For that reason, many solicitors prefer to issue a protective claim inside the six months and then ask the court to pause it while talks continue.

Bhusate v Patel [2019]: an extreme case

In Bhusate v Patel [2019] EWHC 470 (Ch), the claimant brought her claim 25 years and nine months late. This remains the longest reported delay for which a court has granted permission under the Act.

Permission was granted, but the facts were extreme. The claimant spoke no English when her husband died. She received no legal advice for many years. She had also been left with no other way of recovering anything at all. For those reasons, this case is not a precedent for routine late applications.

O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026]: permission refused after four and a half years

In O’Herlihy v Taylor [2026] EWHC 505 (Ch), an adult claimant brought his case almost four and a half years late. The estate was worth about £38.5 million and had been fully distributed.

The court accepted that the claim was arguable, but found it had significant weaknesses. It refused permission because the delay was indefensible and had no satisfactory explanation, and beneficiaries had already received their inheritances. The case shows that a large estate does not make a late claim more likely to proceed.

The practical reality for potential claimants

Late Inheritance Act claims are possible, but they are not easy. The court weighs the reasons for delay alongside the claim’s strength. The claimant must show that the underlying case is at least arguable. A clearly weak claim may lead the court to refuse permission.

The longer the delay, and the greater the prejudice to those who have already inherited, the less likely the court is to grant permission.

In short, if you believe you have a claim under the Inheritance Act, act quickly. Letters, discussions or mediation do not stop the clock. If you are close to the deadline, consider starting a protective claim to preserve your position.

For advice on your own circumstances, speak to a specialist Inheritance Act solicitor as soon as possible.

Think you have an Inheritance Act claim? Time limits under the 1975 Act are strict, and the consequences of missing them are serious. Request a free consultation through The Probate Network and we will put you in touch with an SRA-regulated Inheritance Act solicitor. If your six months are nearly up, do it today rather than next week.

Read Next

How to Make An Inheritance Act Claim
How to Defend an Inheritance Act Claim