The inquirer in this case was a middle aged brother of his deceased sister, who expected a substantial inheritance from his sister when she died.

The sister had inherited all of the assets held by both of her parents on their deaths, and as it was a considerable sum of money, she promised her brother that on her death she would leave her inherited  assets to her brother.  On that basis the brother did not contest the Wills of either his mother or father.

The sister did make a Will to that effect and so her brother anticipated he would benefit when his sister died, as she was  much older than him

There were no other children and the sister was unmarried.

Just before she died the sister married the man of her dreams, but did not make a new Will.

After the sister died, the brother wanted to know about his position.

The effect of the sister marrying was that any Will that she had made before the marriage, was revoked.  Because the sister had not made a new Will, she effectively died intestate, and the  Intestacy Rules would determine how her assets are to be divided.

Under the  Intestacy Rules, the new husband will inherit everything as the sister had no children.

The inquirer wanted to know whether he could claim money from her estate by contesting the  Intestacy Rules, claiming that the  Intestacy Rules operated unfairly.

As there was no enforceable formal agreement as to how the sister was to leave assets to the brother, and the brother was well off and not dependent on the sister, he could not contest under the  Intestacy Rules.

If the sister had made a new Will leaving everything to her new husband, the result would be the same, in that the brother could not have contested the Will.