Karim v Steele & Anor [2025] EWHC 2060 (Ch) (20 August 2025)

Karim v Steele & Anor [2025] EWHC 2060 (Ch) (20 August 2025)

The 2015 will was procured by undue influence and/or fraudulent calumny by John Quinn, rendering it invalid. The circumstantial evidence demonstrated Sheila Carter's total dependence on Mr Quinn, his isolation of her from friends and the claimant, and his provision of untruths to Sheila, which overbore her free will. The evidence did not establish lack of testamentary capacity or want of knowledge and approval, but did establish undue influence and fraudulent calumny. The proprietary estoppel claim was not determined as the probate claim succeeded.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2060 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Shanaz Karim; First Defendant: Dean Steele; Second Defendant: John Quinn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Probate and Proprietary Estoppel Claim / Judgment After Trial on Written Evidence
Outcome
Claim allowed; 2015 will pronounced against and grant revoked.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Undue Influence, Fraudulent Calumny, Proprietary Estoppel
Probate Property Law Equity Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Undue Influence Fraudulent Calumny Proprietary Estoppel

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shanaz Karim

Claimant

Dean Steele

First Defendant

John Quinn

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate and Proprietary Estoppel Claim / Judgment After Trial on Written Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2015 will of Sheila Carter is valid
  2. 2 Whether the 2015 will was procured by undue influence or fraudulent calumny
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has an interest in the property by proprietary estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The 2015 will was procured by undue influence and/or fraudulent calumny by John Quinn, rendering it invalid. The circumstantial evidence demonstrated Sheila Carter's total dependence on Mr Quinn, his isolation of her from friends and the claimant, and his provision of untruths to Sheila, which overbore her free will. The evidence did not establish lack of testamentary capacity or want of knowledge and approval, but did establish undue influence and fraudulent calumny. The proprietary estoppel claim was not determined as the probate claim succeeded.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; 2015 will pronounced against and grant revoked.

Orders

  • Pronounce against the 2015 will of Sheila Carter
  • Revoke the grant of probate to the first defendant