Patel v O’Sullivan [2016] EWHC 801 (Ch) – the importance of evidence when challenging a will

This case concerns a dispute regarding the validity of the will of the late Kantaben Patel (“the Deceased”).

Background

The Deceased had two children, Priti Patel (“Priti”) and Sanjay Patel (“Sanjay”). Priti lived with the Deceased until her death.

In March 2020, the Deceased was diagnosed with cancer.

In June 2026, the Deceased made a will (“the First Will”). Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Priti asked a family friend to prepare the First Will and attend their home for the Deceased to review and sign. It was alleged that previously the Deceased’s sister-in-law, Vimlaben Patel (“Vimlaben”), had loaned £35,000 to the Deceased for the benefit of Priti (“the Loan”). The First Will made no reference to the Loan being repaid to Vimlaben and it gave the Deceased’s home to Priti absolutely.

In July 2026, merely one month later, the Deceased expressed that the First Will did not reflect her true wishes and that Priti had coerced her into signing this. There was a signed note and a recording taken by Sanjay in which the Deceased confirmed this.

As a result, Sanjay took his mother to a solicitor’s office and paid for a new will to be prepared (“the Second Will”). The Second Will made provision for repayment of the Loan and allowed Priti to stay in the home for 2 years after the Deceased’s death, as opposed to gifting this to her outright. The Second Will was prepared by Nicholas O’Sullivan (“Nicholas”) who was also named as an executor.

The Dispute

In relation to the Second Will, Priti alleged that the Deceased was physically and mentally unwell, was taking strong medications due to her cancer diagnosis, and was a vulnerable individual. Further, Priti stated that the Second Will was too complex for the Deceased to understand, given that English was her second language, and that Sanjay had sought to persuade her to change the First Will.

In contrast, Sanjay and Vimlaben asserted that the Deceased was physically and mentally well, was able to understand the contents of the Second Will, and that it was Priti who was controlling towards the Deceased and had coerced her into signing the First Will. Nicholas asserted that he was satisfied that the Deceased knew and understood the contents of the Second Will.

Priti denied the existence of the Loan.

As such, a claim was issued by Priti, disputing the validity of the Second Will on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval, and undue influence exerted by Sanjay and Vimlaben. A claim was issued by Nicholas who sought a declaration under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 64 in relation to the Loan. These claims were consolidated and dealt with together at the final hearing.

The Claim

Knowledge and Approval

For a Will to be valid, the person making the will must know, understand and approve its contents.

The Judge accepted the Defendants’ evidence that the Deceased was given an opportunity to read the Second Will before signing, that she had sufficient command of the English language and so was able to understand its contents, and that despite her medical conditions she did have sufficient capacity to understand the Second Will.

Significant weight was placed on Nicholas’ evidence, as a lawyer who drafted the Second Will, and the detailed attendance notes from Nicholas’ will file which clearly confirmed the Deceased intentions.

Undue Influence

Undue influence occurs when someone applies pressure, manipulates or coerces the person making the will into changing this in a way that benefits them or someone else.

The Judge found that Sanjay and Vimlaben’s actions, of making a recording of the Deceased where she expressed the First Will did not reflect her intentions and taking her to a solicitors firm to prepare the Second Will, did not amount to coercion.

It was determined that these actions were an attempt to show the Deceased’s true wishes and to protect her in the event of a claim arising.

The Loan

Significant weight was given to Vimlaben’s bank statements that showed payments being made to the Deceased.

Further, the Judge found that the actions of the Deceased in making the Second Will supports the fact that the Deceased wanted to make specific provision for the Loan to be repaid and as such confirms its existence.

The Judge held that the Second Will is valid, and the Loan remains outstanding to be paid by Priti.

Final Comments

This case shows the importance of documentary evidence in cases where a dispute arises as to the validity of a will. Further, it demonstrates the persuasiveness of evidence given by an experienced solicitor and will writer, and the importance of keeping accurate notes that reflect the Deceased’s wishes.