Why you should make a valid will to prevent inheritance fraud

Background

Mr Shaikh sadly died in April 2020. His last and only will was written in September 2019, expressly excluding his only child, Ms Khatun, and leaving his entire estate to an acquaintance. 

There were several key warning signs that suggested to Ms Khatun that the will was not signed by her father. Consequently, Ms Khatun brought a claim to challenge the validity of her father’s will against two defendants, namely Mr Hasan in his capacity as the sole beneficiary and Mr Pathania in his role as the executor and attesting witness of the will. 

During the hearing, additional inconsistencies and suspicions arose that the defendants were unable to justify to the satisfaction of the court. 

Warning signs

Ms Khatun told the court that she enjoyed a good relationship with her father and it was extremely surprising that he had actively excluded her from any inheritance whatsoever. She believed her late father barely knew of Mr Hasan and she emphasised that she had no knowledge of her father ever making a will. In contrast, Mr Hasan claimed to have a close familial relationship with Mr Shaikh and Mr Pathania stated he had been a close friend for several years. However, the defendants were unable to provide evidence to illustrate Mr Shaikh’s close relationship to Mr Hasan, which raised further doubt on whether the will reflected Mr Shaikh’s true wishes. 

Mr Pathania purported that the will was prepared by Mr Shaikh, who had reviewed several drafts with him, before preparing and signing the final will himself. However, no paperwork, messages or phone records were produced that referred to a will instruction meeting. No explanation was provided for why Mr Shaikh, who typically relied on solicitors for his legal matters, would draft his own will and entrust it to Mr Pathania. Furthermore, there were also discrepancies in Mr Pathania’s evidence with the timings and reasoning behind his delay in retrieving the will, as well as when he first provided Mr Hasan with a copy of the will. 

Another key warning that raised suspicion was the contents of the will itself. The document contained several spelling and grammatical errors, with arguably none more notable than the incorrect spelling of Ms Khatun’s name. She argued that it was highly unlikely that her father would misspell his own daughter’s name, especially if he allegedly drafted the document himself. In addition, the will referenced several properties in Pakistan, which Mr Shaikh did not in fact own, immediately raising doubts about the document’s authenticity. During the proceedings, Ms Khatun instructed a handwriting analyst who provided expert evidence that confirmed the signature on the will was likely authored by a different individual. 

The judgment

Deputy High Court Judge Caroline Shea held that the defendants had failed to prove the authenticity of the will on the balance of probabilities. While the law presumes a will has been validly executed if it appears to comply with section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, this presumption can be rebutted where the court has serious suspicions, which occurred in this case. 

The evidence presented by the defendants was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and failed to explain why Mr Shaikh would have disinherited his only daughter in favour of someone with whom he had, at best, a tenuous relationship.