Despite the poor ‘preparation and presentation of the parties’ respective cases’ in a recent disputed will claim, the presiding judge (demonstrating considerable patience) concluded that the defendants had failed to prove their case and that the will in question was probably a forgery, as alleged by the claimant. The decision in Khatun v Hasan provides a powerful reminder of the importance of properly prepared evidence and why specialist solicitors should be used in disputed will claims . At the centre of the case was a claim by Ms Khatun that her father’s will was a forgery, a claim disputed by Mr Hasan, the sole beneficiary of his estate.
Background to the case: alleged forgery of a will
Mr Shaikh, Ms Khatun’s father, had purportedly drawn up his will a few months before his death, in which he left his entire estate, which consisted chiefly of properties in the UK and, allegedly, Pakistan, to Mr Hasan who, although not related to Mr Shaikh, claimed a close, family-like relationship with him. Ms Khatun, not aware of the existence of this will, had applied for, and received, letters of administration, enabling her to deal with his estate. After learning of the will and its contents Ms Khatun claimed that it had been forged, stating that she had a close relationship with her father and that he would not have disinherited her, his only child. She sought expert evidence from a forensic handwriting specialist whose report found that the signature on the will was more likely than not to be that of someone imitating Mr Shaikh’s signature.
Procedural errors and unreliable witness statements
The case, when it came to court, was marked by several procedural errors including late disclosures and the defendant’s consistent failure to produce promised documents that he contended would corroborate his position. Both sides had also failed to comply with certification requirements relating to witness statements (which the judge later found unreliable as some of the witnesses had clearly not reviewed their written evidence); and there was considerable confusion over the commissioning of an expert evidence report by the defence, and the subsequent failure to call either expert as a witness. Indeed, the judge noted: “The Court is not required to manage the preparation or presentation of the parties' respective cases for them, much less waste court resources by ordering adjournments so that parties can attempt to improve their position in circumstances where they frankly accept there was no reason, much less any good reason, for their omission to do so.”
Key findings: why the Judge ruled that disputed will was forged
The defendants’ haphazard approach did not help their case: the judge found that they had failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the will had not been forged. She gave several reasons for this:
- An absence of corroborative, contemporary documentary evidence to back up Mr Hasan’s claim.
- No proof that Mr Hasan had anything other than a friendly, business-based relationship with Mr Shaikh, and certainly not the close familial relationship he claimed.
- Limited evidence to prove that Mr Shaikh had asked for Mr Hasan’s help in restructuring debts pertaining to his UK properties, as part of his plan to bequeath them to Mr Hasan. The court found that, at the most, there was a commercial arrangement between the men and nothing more.
- The will contained unexplained discrepancies, including a reference to properties in Pakistan, for which there was no evidence, and anomalous drafting errors. The circumstances around the production of the original will were also deemed suspicious.
It was for the defendants to prove that the will they relied on was valid and not forged. They failed to do so. Although the judge noted that the procedural errors committed by both sides had not helped either party’s case, in the end they were not material to her decision. Sufficient doubt had been generated by the suspect drafting of the will, the suspicious timing of its production and the lack of documentary evidence to back Mr Hasan’s claims, to help the judge conclude that it was likely a forgery. There will be a further hearing to address costs and the administration of the estate.
The importance of using a specialist lawyer
This case underlines the importance of using a solicitor who is not only experienced in the correct drafting of wills to ensure that your estate goes to the people you want to benefit, but is also accredited by the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, to give you the assurance you need that your wishes are carried out professionally and correctly. And, if you find yourself in a Will dispute, make sure you consult a solicitor who understands the legal procedures stipulated by both the Civil Procedure Rules and the Chancery Guide, to ensure your case is conducted correctly. You may not be as lucky to find a judge with such reserves of patience as in this case!
We can help you on both counts. If you have any questions relating to will drafting or contesting a will, please contact a member of our team and we would be delighted to explain your options.
The materials on this website are provided for general information purposes only, and do not provide definitive advice. They do not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained on this website as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published on this site. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
