Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to glossary

No-Contest Clause / In Terrorem Clause

Also known as: Forfeiture Clause, Challenge Penalty

Definition

A no-contest clause (in terrorem clause) is a will provision that causes a beneficiary to forfeit their inheritance if they challenge the will and the clause is triggered, with the gift passing to an alternative beneficiary.

What Does No-Contest Clause Mean?

A no-contest clause—also called an in terrorem clause from Latin meaning "by way of threat"—penalizes beneficiaries who challenge a will's validity or provisions. Under English law established in Nathan v Leonard [2002] WTLR 1061, these clauses are not contrary to public policy because they deter rather than prevent challenges. Sim v Pimlott [2023] EWHC 2296 (Ch) confirmed their effectiveness against even Inheritance Act 1975 claims. The clause cannot prevent challenges—preventing court access violates public policy—but creates a financial disincentive by putting inheritances at risk.

For validity, a no-contest clause must include a "gift over"—the forfeited benefit must pass to a named alternative beneficiary. Without this, the clause is invalid. The will must make objectively reasonable provision for the beneficiary. Sarah's will leaves £300,000 to daughter Emma with a clause stating: "If Emma challenges this will, her £300,000 shall be forfeited and pass to my sister Jennifer." This is valid because it includes a gift over and makes reasonable provision.

The clause typically triggers whether a challenge succeeds or fails, unless stated otherwise. In Sim v Pimlott, a widow challenged under the Inheritance Act 1975 and forfeited £375,000. Critically, she could not then argue inadequate provision because she forfeited through her own actions. Clear wording is essential—in Nathan v Leonard, "wish to contest or disagree with" was too vague. Modern clauses specify precisely: challenging validity, contesting provisions, or bringing Inheritance Act claims.

Common Questions

"Can a no-contest clause completely prevent someone from challenging a will?"

No, the clause cannot legally prevent challenges in England and Wales—that would be contrary to public policy. Everyone retains the right to challenge on legitimate grounds. However, the clause deters challenges by specifying that beneficiaries who contest and trigger the clause will forfeit their inheritance, which passes to the alternative beneficiary named in the gift over provision.

"What makes a no-contest clause valid under UK law?"

The clause must include a "gift over"—the forfeited benefit must pass to someone else (another beneficiary, charity, or residuary estate). The will must make objectively reasonable provision for the beneficiary. Without a gift over, the clause is an impermissible threat and invalid. Clear wording is essential to specify triggering actions.

"Will a no-contest clause stop me from making a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975?"

No, it cannot bar Inheritance Act claims—that would be contrary to public policy. However, if you bring a claim and trigger the clause, you forfeit your inheritance. Sim v Pimlott (2023) confirmed you cannot then argue inadequate provision because you forfeited the gift through your own actions.

Common Misconceptions

Myth: A no-contest clause can completely prevent anyone from challenging a will

Reality: No-contest clauses cannot legally prevent will challenges in England and Wales—that would be contrary to public policy. The law ensures everyone retains the right to challenge on legitimate grounds including lack of capacity, undue influence, or improper execution. These clauses deter challenges by creating a financial disincentive: if triggered, you lose your inheritance entirely. The Latin "in terrorem" means "by way of threat," reflecting that the clause intimidates rather than prohibits.

Myth: If you have a strong case, you don't need to worry about a no-contest clause

Reality: Even with strong grounds, a no-contest clause creates genuine risk. The clause typically triggers whether your challenge succeeds or fails unless stated otherwise. Sim v Pimlott [2023] established that if you forfeit your gift by triggering the clause, you cannot then argue inadequate provision because you forfeited through your own actions. You also face potential adverse costs orders. Seek specialist legal advice before challenging any will containing such a clause.

  • Will Challenge: The action that triggers a no-contest clause, whether challenging validity or distribution provisions.

  • Beneficiary: Only beneficiaries named in the will can be penalized by no-contest clauses—you cannot forfeit what you were never given.

  • Inheritance Act 1975 Claim: No-contest clauses frequently deter these family provision claims, as demonstrated in Sim v Pimlott.

  • Testamentary Freedom: No-contest clauses express testamentary freedom—the right to protect your estate distribution intentions through valid deterrent provisions.

  • Undue Influence: A legitimate ground for challenge that might justify risking a no-contest clause, though if the will is invalid, the clause falls with it.

Need Help with Your Will?

Understanding specialist provisions like no-contest clauses helps protect testamentary intentions. While WUHLD doesn't currently support these clauses due to their complexity, we guide you through every essential legal requirement for creating a valid will.

Create your will with confidence using WUHLD's guided platform. For just £99.99, you'll get your complete, legally binding will plus three expert guides. Preview your will free before paying anything—no credit card required.

Legal Disclaimer:

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. WUHLD is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Laws and guidance change and their application depends on your circumstances. For advice about your situation, consult a qualified solicitor or regulated professional. Unless stated otherwise, information relates to England and Wales.