Patel v Patel (2026): When Is a Will Invalid Due to Improper Execution?

There are many different reasons for contesting a will, these include:

• Incorrectly drafted wills
• Wills not being signed and witnessed in accordance with the law
• Want of knowledge and approval as the deceased did not know or understand why they were signing
• Coercion (undue influence) of the deceased when they signed the will
• Lack of capacity when a will is made
• Forgery and fraud

The starting point under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 is that:

“No will shall be valid unless-

• (a) It is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence
  and by his direction; and
• (b) It appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will; and
• (c) The signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or
  more witnesses present at the same time; and
• (d) Each witness either-
  • (i) attests and signs the will; or
  • (ii) acknowledges his signature,
    in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness), but no form of          attestation shall be necessary.”

If on the face of it a will appears to have been validly executed, then strong evidence is required to rebut this presumption.

In the case of Patel v Patel (2026) the court looked the suspicious circumstances around the execution of a later will

The Facts

This case concerned the estate of Mr Laxmikant Patel who died in October 2021 aged 85 years old. His estate was worth about £600,000.

He was survived by his 3 children Anju, Piyush and Bhaventta.

He had made previous wills in 2018 and 2019 which split the estate between his children.

In 2021 he made a new will which left the majority of the estate to Anju instead. The will was made 2 months before his death when he was terminally ill, frail and in hospital during Covid.

The will appointed Vijaykant Patel, who was known to Anju, as executor.

The judge was concerned about the circumstances of the making and execution of the will for the following reasons:

• the witnesses had clearly signed the will with different pens
• it was a drastic change from his previous wills
• it disinherited 2 of his 3 children

The judge arrived at the clear conclusion that those propounding the 2021 will have not discharged the burden of establishing that he knew and approved its contents.

The most striking feature of the case was that the adverse costs ordered (over £450,000) dwarfed the £300,000 Anju was due to inherit from her father’s estate. This would be in addition to her own solicitor’s costs which were unlikely to be much less.

Final Words

It is of course important to have a will to avoid challenges, but it is even more important to have a will which has been properly executed to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.

Given the amounts at stake, it is surprising that the matter was not resolved by some form of ADR. If Anju has no means of satisfying the costs order, her share of the estate will be insufficient to meet all the costs and therefore all parties have lost out as a result of the litigation.

Litigation should not be embarked on lightly without seeking appropriate professional advice early on.

Whether you are challenging a will or defending a claim, obtaining specialist legal advice at an early stage is essential. Contact our contentious probate experts to discuss your options and protect your interests. Call 0330 822 3451 or request a callback at a more convenient time.