The Solicitor for the Affairs of HM Treasury v Doveton & Anor

The civil standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, including where fraud is alleged. The seriousness of an allegation and its consequences affect the care and quality of evidence required, rather than altering the standard itself.

A grant of probate may be revoked where the proved will is forged. Dispositions made at an undervalue may be set aside under Insolvency Act 1986 section 423 where their purpose is to put assets beyond the reach of, or prejudice, persons with claims against the disponer.

The Treasury Solicitor sought revocation of a grant of probate obtained by Nicholas Doveton in respect of a purported 1977 will of Denise Janovtchik. The claim alleged that the will was forged and that Mr Doveton had made subsequent dispositions of estate and personal assets to Trixilis Investments Corporation to defeat or prejudice creditors.

The principal issue was whether the will was genuine. The court also considered the appropriate standard of proof and the statutory basis for setting aside the later dispositions.

1. The court applied the civil standard of proof, namely the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegations and their consequences required careful assessment of the evidence, but did not create a higher or criminal standard.

2. The evidence was circumstantial. The court accepted the forensic document evidence that the signatures of the purported attesting witnesses on the disputed will were forged. That conclusion, together with the unusual contents of the will, the unexplained use of the surname Janovtechnik, the typewriter evidence, the absence of independent evidence supporting the alleged family connection, and Mr Doveton’s conduct, established that the will was a forgery.

3. The grant of probate made on 28 July 2006 was revoked, and the court pronounced against the validity of the disputed will. A grant of letters of administration was to be made to the Treasury Solicitor if otherwise entitled.

4. The claims based on sham and constructive trust were rejected because there was insufficient evidence of the knowledge and intentions of Trixilis’s relevant corporate actors. The court nevertheless found that the dispositions were transactions at an undervalue made for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of, or prejudicing the interests of, creditors within section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The dispositions were set aside and the restrictions on the registered titles were ordered to be vacated.