Louise Michelle Reeves v Clayton Peter Drew & Ors.

Louise Michelle Reeves v Clayton Peter Drew & Ors.

The Claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will. The court found the will-making process was tainted by the Claimant's involvement and the solicitor's unreliable evidence, and that the deceased's illiteracy made it unlikely he understood the will's contents. The dramatic change from the 2012 will was unexplained. Accordingly, the 2014 will was declared invalid for want of knowledge and approval.

Parties
Claimant: Louise Michelle Reeves; First Defendant: Clayton Peter Drew; Second Defendant: Simon Kevin Frain (aka Simon Kevin Frain, aka Bill Reeves); Third Defendant: Lisa Murray; Fourth Defendant: Mark Ryan McKinnon; Fifth Defendant: Cherie Adeline McKinnon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Probate Dispute (contentious Probate) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The 2014 will is invalid for want of knowledge and approval; the 2012 will is pronounced as the valid will in solemn form. The undue influence claim is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Knowledge and Approval of Will, Undue Influence, Testamentary Capacity, Validity of Wills, Role of Solicitors in Will Making
Succession Law Probate Wills and Estates Knowledge and Approval of Will Undue Influence Testamentary Capacity Validity of Wills Role of Solicitors in Will Making

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Michelle Reeves

Claimant

Clayton Peter Drew

First Defendant

Simon Kevin Frain (aka Simon Kevin Frain, aka Bill Reeves)

Second Defendant

Lisa Murray

Third Defendant

Mark Ryan McKinnon

Fourth Defendant

Cherie Adeline McKinnon

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Dispute (contentious Probate) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will
  2. 2 Whether the 2014 will was procured by undue influence exercised by the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will. The court found the will-making process was tainted by the Claimant's involvement and the solicitor's unreliable evidence, and that the deceased's illiteracy made it unlikely he understood the will's contents. The dramatic change from the 2012 will was unexplained. Accordingly, the 2014 will was declared invalid for want of knowledge and approval.

Court Disposition

The 2014 will is invalid for want of knowledge and approval; the 2012 will is pronounced as the valid will in solemn form. The undue influence claim is dismissed.

Orders

  • Pronouncement against the force and validity of the 2014 will dated 7 January 2014
  • Pronouncement in favour of the 2012 will as the valid will in solemn form