Stephenson v Daley [2026] EWHC 53 (Ch): Laches and Want of Knowledge and approval
Background
This case concerns a dispute regarding the validity of the will of the late Elaine Reid (“Elaine”), who passed away in October 2016. Elaine had two sons from a previous relationship, Gerard Daley (“Gerard”) and Stephen Daley (“Stephen”), and at the time of death was living with her partner Malcolm Roocroft (“Malcolm”).
The will in dispute was Elaine’s only will, and therefore, absent this, she would have died intestate, meaning that her entire estate would pass under the intestacy rules to her sons, Gerard and Stephen. Malcolm would be left with nothing and would have no right to continue to live in the property.
Upon Elaine’s death, Gerard and Stephen discovered that the terms of her will left her entire estate to Malcolm absolutely, and thereafter to them upon Malcolm’s death. The executors were Malcolm and Mr Davies, the solicitor who was instructed to prepare Elaine’s will.
A caveat was entered on Elaine’s will, which prevented the executors from obtaining probate and administering the estate.
Malcolm passed away in November 2024, with the benefit of a will. He died without having challenged the caveats or obtaining a grant of probate to distribute Elaine’s estate. The executors of Malcolm’s will (the Claimants in this dispute) challenged these caveats, and in response, Gerard and Stephen (the Defendants), explained their reasoning why these should remain in place. They sought to challenge the validity of Elaine’s will on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval, i.e, that Elaine did not understand the contents of her will or the effect this would have on her estate upon death.
The claim was issued on 10 March 2025.
The Dispute – Want of Knowledge and approval
The burden of proving that Elaine did have the requisite knowledge and approval was on the Claimants.
The Defendants had sought to challenge the will on this ground, for the following (non-exhaustive) reasons:
- Elaine and Malcom’s relationship had deteriorated in the years leading up to her death, raising suspicions around the will, leaving her entire estate to Malcolm, and therefore whether Elaine fully understood the effect of the document that had been prepared and executed
- Elaine had expressed during her lifetime that she did not want to make a will, and it was Malcolm who had initiated this process
- Mr Davies’s failings during the preparation of the will meant that it could not be definitively confirmed that this was prepared based on Elaine’s instructions, including failing to confirm that he was taking instructions from Elaine herself during a phone call, the back-dating of documents, and failing to keep a complete will file.
The Court found that, despite the supposed deterioration of Elaine and Malcolm’s relationship, they remained a couple and were living together at the time of Elaine’s death. Neither party was able to give evidence during the proceedings.
It was asserted that Malcolm had made his concerns clear to Elaine, specifically in relation to her lack of will, meaning her estate would be subject to the intestacy rules, and he would be made homeless. Mr Davies’s notes confirm this and that Elaine understood his concern and came to share the same view. The Court noted that, despite Elaine’s prior apprehensions to prepare a will, she was entitled to change her mind and doing so in contemplation of Malcolm’s concern was reasonable and foreseeable.
The Court held that it would be extremely unlikely that Malcolm would have fraudulently procured someone else to be Elaine during her telephone discussion with Mr Davies, whereby her instructions were obtained. It therefore follows that the instructions as to the will’s preparation came from Elaine.
Further, Mr Davies’s notes make clear that when he attended Elaine’s property in July 2016, Elaine was given an opportunity to read the will before execution, and that Malcolm was asked to and did leave the room before execution.
It was therefore held that Elaine approved the will’s contents and was aware of its effect.
Laches
The Claimants also relied on the doctrine of laches, arguing that the Defendant should be barred from pursuing the claim to challenge the will’s validity, even if this has sufficient prospects of success, due to their delay in bringing the claim itself.
The Defendants were aware of the terms of the will upon Elaine’s death in 2016, and this was confirmed by Stephen having entered a caveat. A Larke v Nugus request was made in March 2017, and a response was provided by the Claimants in April 2017.
As such, from as early as April 2017, the Defendants had all the knowledge that was required to bring a claim. However, the claim was not brought until March 2025, amounting to a delay of over 7 years.
The Court commented on the impact of this delay on the proceedings, including the fact that Malcolm’s death prevented him from giving evidence, the weakening of the witnesses’ memories with the passage of time, and the fact that Mr Davies’s firm closed in May 202,3 inhibiting the extent of documentary evidence that could be reproduced.
The Court accepted the Defendants’ reason for the delay, that they were of the belief that Malcolm was required to take the next step following the caveats being entered into. The Court did not accept the position that the Defendants had delayed the issue of proceedings until Malcom’s death to rid him of the opportunity to give evidence. However, it was held that there was still no good explanation for the delay, and as such, this could not be justified.
A grant of probate was awarded to the Claimants, and the Defendants’ counterclaim challenging the validity of the will was dismissed.
Final Comments
This case shows the importance of pursuing claims quickly, as the right to bring it may be lost should there be an unreasonable delay. The judgment explores the approach to validity challenge claims in respect of the deceased’s knowledge, and the approach taken by the Court where there is a delay in the issue of these proceedings.
Ultimately, it was held that Elaine did have full knowledge of her will’s meaning, content, and effect, despite what at the outset may appear to be a stark contrast to her earlier intentions.