May & Ors v Middlemas & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment follows a trial concerning a probate claim to determine the validity of a will dated 2 January 2020 ("the Disputed Will") purportedly made by the Deceased, who died on 3 February 2020 aged 73. The claimants, originally six cousins of the Deceased who would be entitled to the estate on intestacy, included a substituted sixth claimant following the death of the original sixth claimant during the proceedings. The sole beneficiary named in the Disputed Will is the first defendant. The estate consists of three residential properties in London, with a net distributable value of £931,525 as at 27 July 2023. The proceedings commenced on 14 April 2022.

The claimants allege the Disputed Will is invalid under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, asserting the signature is a forgery created by the first defendant. The first defendant initially defended the claim but had his defence struck out for failure to comply with court orders to serve witness statements. Consequently, the trial proceeded on an undefended basis. An application by the first defendant for relief from sanctions to reinstate the defence was dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Disputed Will complies with the formal requirements of section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.
2. Whether the signature on the Disputed Will is genuine or forged.
3. The validity of the Disputed Will in light of the evidence including expert forensic examination and witness testimony.
4. The appropriate remedy if the Disputed Will is found invalid.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

• The Disputed Will is invalid as it does not comply with statutory formalities.
• The signature on the Disputed Will is forged by the first defendant.
• The substantive provisions of the Disputed Will are implausible given the Deceased’s relationships, particularly the exclusion of his long-term partner and family.
• The circumstances surrounding the production and late disclosure of the Disputed Will are suspicious and undermine its authenticity.
• The Deceased was known to instruct professionals for legal matters, making it unlikely he would have prepared an amateurish will himself.
• The first defendant’s conduct, including failure to provide evidence and wrongful receipt of funds from a related party’s account, supports the claim of forgery and invalidity.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the first defendant’s arguments following the striking out of his defence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognised the serious nature of the forgery allegation but applied the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. The court considered the entirety of the evidence, including expert forensic document examination, witness testimony, and the factual circumstances surrounding the will's production and disclosure.

The expert forensic examiner, a highly qualified and internationally renowned specialist, conducted an extensive analysis of 38 documents including the Disputed Will. She concluded that it was more likely than not that the signatures of both the Deceased and his partner on the Disputed Will were not genuine. The expert noted significant structural and executional differences in the signatures compared to known examples and observed technical features consistent with tracing rather than original signing.

The forensic evidence also indicated that the two pages of the Disputed Will were created separately, with differences in paper, ink adherence, folding, and formatting, undermining the authenticity of the document as a single executed will.

Witness evidence corroborated the suspicious circumstances: the Disputed Will was not disclosed until months after the Deceased’s death despite searches and inquiries by those close to the Deceased, including the first defendant and a tenant. The late disclosure and inconsistent accounts raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the Disputed Will.

The court also considered the Deceased’s relationships and estate management practices, finding it improbable that the Deceased would exclude his long-term partner and family entirely in favour of the first defendant, with whom he had a strained relationship prior to death.

The first defendant’s failure to comply with court orders to provide evidence regarding the will’s preparation and execution led to an adverse inference that he could not provide a credible explanation. Further, evidence showed the first defendant wrongfully procured transfer of funds from the partner’s bank account, indicating dishonest conduct.

Balancing all factors, the court found the Disputed Will to be invalid and forged.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court held that the Disputed Will is not valid and was not signed by the Deceased. The will is declared forged and invalid. Consequently, the estate shall be administered on the basis of intestacy, and a grant of letters of administration is to be issued accordingly.

The decision directly affects the parties by denying the validity of the Disputed Will and reverting estate distribution to intestacy rules. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles regarding forgery and the civil standard of proof.