Patel v Patel [2017] EWHC 133 (Ch) (10 February 2017)

Patel v Patel [2017] EWHC 133 (Ch) (10 February 2017)

The court found that the claimant failed to establish the authenticity of the 2005 will. The evidence, including expert handwriting and ink analysis, the presence of a pre-existing signature, the implausibility and inconsistencies in the claimant's account, and the lack of credible corroboration from witnesses, led the court to conclude that the will was not executed as claimed and was likely fabricated after the deceased's death. The claimant and key witnesses were found to have lied and colluded, further undermining the claimant's case. The 1986 will therefore remained valid.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 133 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Girish Dahyabhai Patel; Defendant: Yashwant Dahyabhai Patel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Forgery of Wills, Revocation of Grant of Probate, Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval of Will, Expert Evidence in Probate, Witness Credibility
Probate Wills and Estates Civil Litigation Forgery of Wills Revocation of Grant of Probate Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval of Will Expert Evidence in Probate +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Girish Dahyabhai Patel

Claimant

Yashwant Dahyabhai Patel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will dated 23 June 2005 was forged by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the will if genuine
  3. 3 Whether the 1986 will was revoked by the 2005 will

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant failed to establish the authenticity of the 2005 will. The evidence, including expert handwriting and ink analysis, the presence of a pre-existing signature, the implausibility and inconsistencies in the claimant's account, and the lack of credible corroboration from witnesses, led the court to conclude that the will was not executed as claimed and was likely fabricated after the deceased's death. The claimant and key witnesses were found to have lied and colluded, further undermining the claimant's case. The 1986 will therefore remained valid.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Probate in solemn form of the 2005 will refused
  • Grant of probate in respect of the 1986 will to remain