Henein v Laffa

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns the validity of the last will dated 14 February 2008 of the Applicant's wife, who died seven days later. The Applicant had known his wife since their teenage years and had been married to her since 1983. The will named the wife's son from a previous marriage, the Applicant's stepson, as the sole beneficiary. The central issues before the trial judge, Her Honour Judge Walden Smith, sitting in the Central London County Court, were the testamentary capacity of the deceased, the validity of the will’s execution, whether the deceased knew and approved the will’s contents, and whether the will was made under undue influence by the stepson. The judge upheld the validity of the will and also found that a notice of severance of the joint tenancy of the matrimonial home had been validly served. No claim was made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The judge ordered the Applicant to pay the stepson's costs, which were significant and would likely result in the sale of the property, leaving the Applicant with substantial financial loss and homelessness. The Applicant maintains a strong sense of injustice, disputing the will’s validity and alleging undue influence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of making the will.
2. Whether the will was validly signed and attested.
3. Whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the will.
4. Whether the will was made under the undue influence of the stepson.
5. Whether a notice of severance of the joint tenancy was validly served.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the evidence, including testimony from the Applicant, a distinguished consultant psychiatrist, and the solicitor who drafted the will. The trial judge correctly directed herself that the stepson, as the propounder of the will, bore the burden of proving testamentary capacity, due execution, and knowledge and approval, while the Applicant bore the burden of proving undue influence. The judge distinguished the concept of undue influence in probate from that in lifetime transactions, noting that no presumption of undue influence arises in wills and that coercion must be proven by the party asserting it.

After assessing the evidence, the judge found that despite the deceased’s grave illness, she had testamentary capacity, validly executed the will, and knew and approved its contents. The judge rejected the claim of undue influence. The judge also found the severance of the joint tenancy to be valid. The court found no error in law or fact in the trial judge’s detailed and careful judgment.

Permission to appeal was refused by Lewison LJ, whose reasons were adopted by the court. The Applicant’s renewed application for permission to appeal was similarly refused as there was no realistic prospect of success. The court recognized the Applicant’s distress and financial hardship but concluded that granting permission would only give false hope and lead to further costs without changing the outcome.

Holding and Implications

Permission to appeal is refused.

The direct effect of this decision is that the trial judge’s rulings on the validity of the will and the severance of the joint tenancy stand, and the Applicant is liable for the stepson’s costs. No new legal precedent was established. The decision finalizes the litigation, despite the Applicant’s personal and financial hardship, and prevents further appeals on the matter.