Jane Oliver v Rodney William Oliver
[2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch)
Varsha Gohil v Kamla Gohil
2 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 213 (Ch)
High Court
A wife challenged her deceased husband's will, saying he was manipulated into leaving her out. The court ruled the will was valid because the husband had been separated from his wife for years and had a close relationship with the person who benefited from the will. The wife didn't prove anyone forced her husband to make the will.
Key Facts
- •Will of Babulal Ramji Gohil (Deceased) dated 30 March 2009.
- •Deceased died on 23 January 2018.
- •Claimant, Varsha Gohil (Deceased's former daughter-in-law), is the sole executrix.
- •Defendant, Kamla Gohil (Deceased's estranged wife), disputed the will's validity.
- •Will specifically excludes Defendant and her son, Bhadresh.
- •Defendant alleged undue influence, fraudulent calumny, false misrepresentation, fraud, and forgery.
- •Claimant sought to pronounce the will's force and validity.
- •Defendant counterclaimed for removal of the Claimant as executrix and other relief.
- •Deceased and Defendant were separated since 2001, with limited contact thereafter.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment principles under CPR rule 24.
Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) and AC Ward & Sons Limited v Catlin (Five) Limited [2009] EWHC 3122 (Comm)
Strike out principles under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a).
CPR rule 3.4
Testamentary capacity principles.
Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549, Re: Key [2010] 1 W.L.R. 2020
Presumption of due execution with a perfect attestation clause.
Sherrington v Sherrington [2005] EWCA Civ 26
Presumption of testamentary capacity where will is duly executed and appears rational.
Re: Key [2010] 1 W.L.R. 2020
Undue influence in testamentary dispositions.
Re Edwards (deceased) [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch)
Strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator's intentions.
Gill v Wood [2011] Ch 280
Outcomes
Pronounced for the force and validity of the Will.
Defendant failed to provide evidence to rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity and due execution, or to prove undue influence, fraud, or calumny. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the Deceased's estrangement from the Defendant and his close relationship with the Claimant.
Granted reverse summary judgment for the Claimant on the counterclaim regarding revocation of the Will.
Insufficient evidence to support allegations of undue influence, fraud, or calumny.
Counterclaims for proprietary estoppel, equitable account, and under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 were not subject to summary judgment.
These claims require factual determination at trial.