The High Court's decision in Patel v O'Sullivan & Ors (Re Estate of Kantaben Ratilal Patel) [2026] EWHC 801 (Ch) considered whether a Will should be declared invalid because the deceased did not know and approve of its contents or had been subjected to undue influence.

Despite a number of circumstances surrounding the preparation of the Will which were said to give rise to suspicion, the Court ultimately concluded that the deceased understood and approved the Will and had not been coerced into making it.

Background to the case

Kantaben Patel died in December 2020. Shortly before her death, she made two Wills within approximately one month of each other.

The first, made in June 2020, was particularly favourable to her daughter, Priti Patel. Among other provisions, it left the deceased's home to Priti outright and appointed her as executrix.

A further Will was then made in July 2020. This Will was professionally prepared by solicitor Nicholas O'Sullivan and materially changed the arrangements concerning the deceased's home. It recognised a £35,000 loan said to have been made by the deceased's sister-in-law, while allowing Priti to remain in the property for a period before its sale unless the £35,000 was repaid.

Priti subsequently challenged the July Will on the grounds that her mother had not known and approved of its contents and that the Will had been procured through undue influence exerted by family members.

Importantly, there was no allegation that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity. Priti sought to uphold the Will made only a few weeks earlier and did not suggest that her mother's mental capacity had materially changed during that short period.

Why was the Will challenged?

Priti relied upon a number of circumstances which she said cast doubt upon the July Will.

The deceased had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and was taking strong pain medication. It was argued that her physical condition, fatigue and vulnerability affected the circumstances in which the Will was made.

There was also a dispute concerning the deceased's stay at a relative's home shortly before the Will was prepared. Priti alleged that her mother had been taken there against her wishes so that she could be persuaded to change her Will. Those allegations were denied.

Further concerns were raised about whether the deceased, whose first language was not English, could properly have understood some of the more complicated provisions contained within the July Will.

The undue influence case focused particularly upon the involvement of the deceased's son and sister-in-law. They had assisted in taking her to the solicitor and potentially stood to benefit from the new arrangements. The Court accepted that there was both motive and opportunity for influence to be exerted, but this did not itself establish that the deceased had been coerced.

Knowledge and approval

Where a Will has been properly executed by a person with testamentary capacity, there will generally be strong evidence that the testator knew and approved its contents. However, suspicious circumstances can require those seeking to uphold the Will to provide satisfactory evidence that the document genuinely reflected the testator's wishes.

The Court therefore considered the circumstances surrounding the July Will as a whole.

A significant factor was the evidence of the solicitor who prepared the Will. Nicholas O'Sullivan met with the deceased alone for more than an hour to take her instructions. He subsequently went through the Will with her before she signed it and was satisfied that she understood its contents.

Although the deceased was clearly experiencing some physical discomfort, the Court accepted the evidence that she remained alert and able to communicate effectively. The judge also accepted that her command of English was sufficient to understand the discussions with the solicitor.

There were some errors in the solicitor's records, including an incorrect year for Priti's date of birth and an inconsistency regarding burial or cremation. However, the Court did not consider those matters sufficiently significant to cast doubt on whether the deceased understood and approved the Will.

What about the video evidence?

Another important feature of the case was contemporaneous video evidence.

A number of recordings had been made around the time the July Will was prepared. Although one recording involved the deceased responding to questions from her son, others showed her speaking more freely and explaining that she had made the arrangements because they reflected what she wanted.

The Court regarded the recordings as supporting the conclusion that she was alert, understood what she was doing and had acted voluntarily.

The case therefore also illustrates how evidence created at the time a Will is prepared can become highly significant if its validity is later challenged. LexisNexis similarly identified the solicitor's records and contemporaneous video evidence as important features supporting the Court's conclusion.

Was there undue influence?

The Court also rejected the allegation of undue influence.

In a probate claim, it is not enough to show that somebody had the opportunity to influence a testator, or even that they attempted to persuade them. The person challenging the Will must establish coercion: pressure which overbears the testator's own wishes so that the resulting Will no longer represents their true intentions.

There is no presumption of undue influence simply because a beneficiary was closely involved in the circumstances surrounding the Will. The burden remains upon the person alleging it.

Although the Court accepted that family members had the opportunity and potential motive to influence the deceased, the evidence did not establish coercion. Even if there had been attempts to persuade her, the judge was satisfied that this had not crossed the line into undue influence.

The July 2020 Will was therefore upheld as valid.

Why is the decision important?

Patel v O'Sullivan demonstrates that unusual or suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of a Will do not automatically make it invalid.

A significant change from a recent Will, serious illness, involvement by family members and the potential benefit received by those family members may all justify further investigation. However, the Court ultimately has to consider the evidence as a whole and determine whether the testator understood and approved the Will and whether their decisions were genuinely their own.

The decision also highlights the importance of the Will preparation process. Detailed attendance notes, taking instructions from the testator privately and carefully explaining the effect of the Will can provide important evidence if the Will is subsequently challenged. Contemporaneous evidence, including recordings where appropriately obtained, may also become relevant to determining what the testator understood and intended.

For those considering challenging a Will on the basis of undue influence, the case is also a reminder of the high evidential threshold involved. Suspicion, opportunity or involvement in the Will-making process are not enough by themselves. There must be evidence capable of establishing that the testator's free will was actually overborne.

Find out how Switalskis can help you

If you have concerns about the circumstances in which a Will was prepared or believe that a Will does not reflect the deceased's true wishes, our contentious probate team can advise on the available options and the evidence which may be required to investigate a potential challenge.

Give our specialist contentious probate team a call on 0800 138 0458 or send us a message through our website to get things moving.