Varsha Gohil v Kamla Gohil
[2024] EWHC 213 (Ch)
Corinne Dunstan v Andrea Ball
9 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2105 (Ch)
High Court
Two sisters fought over their mom's will. One sister claimed the will wasn't valid because her mom didn't understand it, was pressured, or was misled. The judge listened to everyone and decided the will was valid. The judge found the sister who was named in the will was more believable. Even though some important witnesses weren't there, the judge still believed the will was real and gave that sister the inheritance.
Key Facts
- •Michelle Williams died on February 2, 2021, leaving a will naming her daughter Corinne Dunstan as executrix and residuary beneficiary.
- •The deceased's other daughter, Andrea Ball, challenged the will on grounds of want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, and fraudulent calumny.
- •The will was drafted by Stephens Scown LLP, and its execution was witnessed by two of their employees who were not called as witnesses at trial.
- •The Deceased had a long history of ill health, including depression, a near-fatal heart attack, and a diagnosis of dementia in 2017.
- •The relationship between the two daughters was strained, with limited contact after 2012.
- •Andrea alleged that Corinne isolated her from their mother and exerted undue influence over her.
- •Corinne denied these allegations and maintained that the will reflected her mother's wishes.
Legal Principles
Want of knowledge and approval of a will's contents requires proving the will did not represent the testator's intentions.
Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430
In testamentary dispositions, there's no presumption of undue influence; the burden of proof lies on the person asserting it.
Re Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch)
Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (as amended) outlines requirements for valid will execution, including signing and attestation by two witnesses.
Wills Act 1837, section 9; Administration of Justice Act 1982, section 17
CPR Rule 57.7 details requirements for statements of case in probate disputes, including particulars of facts relied upon for challenging a will.
CPR Rule 57.7
Outcomes
The counterclaim was dismissed.
The judge found insufficient evidence to support the claims of want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, or fraudulent calumny. The judge found the claimant's witnesses to be more credible and their evidence consistent, while the defendant's witnesses' evidence was often inconsistent with their written statements and lacked sufficient weight.
The will was pronounced in solemn form; probate granted to the claimant.
Despite the failure to call the attesting witnesses, the judge found sufficient evidence from other sources to satisfy the requirements for proving the will. The judge also deemed it appropriate to handle the missing witness evidence through an adjournment and obtain the attesting witnesses testimony rather than dismissing the case based on their absence.