CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEE SPECIALISTS – RECONSTITUTING A WILL UNDER RULE 54, NON-CONTENTIOUS PROBATE RULES 1987

Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, discuss reconstruction of a will under r54 NCPR, 1987 in a case where a previous will exists but a party refuses to disclose it during proceedings challenging the validity of a later will.

Overview – Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch)

This lengthy judgment describes an unsettling and at times colourful set of events. It resulted from the trial of two claims relating to the will of the late William Oliver.

Claim one, which was successful, was brought by Jane – the deceased’s youngest surviving child – against her oldest sibling Rodney. It sought to invalidate a will dated 14 September 2015 on incapacity and undue influence grounds and admit to probate in its place an earlier will dated 2 October 2009. This application was brought under Rule 54 NCPR.

The second claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act, 1975 brought by Jane and another sibling fell away following the success of claim one.

The case throws up a whole range of issues of interest to practitioners. Most of the 38 page judgment concentrates on the reasoning around the dual findings of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence that rendered the will of 14 September 2015 invalid. We provide a flavour of the judgment here. In this note we examine HHJ Matthews’ application of Rule 54 NCPR, reconstituting the 2009 will in light of his decision on the September 2015 will.

The competing wills
The rules for reconstructing a will
Applying Rule 54 NCPR to the facts in Oliver v Oliver

Following a detailed analysis of the facts and relevant case law HHJ Matthews ruled that the will of September 2015 was invalid. He then proceeded – without fuss or fanfare – to allow the application under Rule 54, granting probate in solemn form to the 2009 will, as reconstituted.

In such a lengthy judgment it is of note that there is relatively little discussion of the successful Rule 54 application. HHJ Matthews accepted the evidence that in 1985 June and William Oliver made mirror wills, leaving all to the children equally after their deaths.

No solicitors were involved in the making these wills – they were effectively homemade, one child Kevin assisting his parents by downloading a suitable will precedent from a website.

These largely informal circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of the mirror wills had no bearing whatsoever on HHJ Matthews’ ruling. He had June’s will before him, and it was enough to satisfy the requirements of Rule 54 – in spite of Rodney’s erratic and unhelpful behavior in refusing to provide his father’s will to the court.

He was clear:
‘Notwithstanding that I have not seen the will of 2009, I am satisfied that it was properly made, and that I know all its terms.’

Contact Us

If you consider any of these facts and matters are of interest, are likely to apply to you, or you would like to ask for more information about our no win no fee arrangements, then please do not hesitate to contact WillClaim Solicitors for a confidential no strings chat. You can also call us on 02033225103