Ali Haider v Syed

In a civil claim alleging forgery of a will, the legal burden remains on the party making the allegation and the standard remains the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegation does not create a higher standard of proof. It affects the inherent probability of the alleged event and therefore the cogency of the evidence needed to establish it.

The court must assess all the evidence cumulatively. Inconclusive expert evidence does not prevent a finding of forgery where the surrounding factual evidence, including the circumstances of execution and the witnesses’ reliability, establishes the allegation on the balance of probabilities.

The claimant sought revocation of letters of administration granted to the deceased’s husband on the basis that the deceased had died intestate. He relied on a purported will said to have been executed in India in December 2005.

The defendant denied the will’s validity and alleged that the deceased’s signature was forged. The court heard factual evidence from the parties and attesting witnesses, together with expert handwriting evidence. The central issue was whether the signature on the purported will was genuine.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The defendant accepted that the legal burden of proving forgery rested on the party making the allegation. The applicable standard remained the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegation required cogent evidence because the inherent probability or improbability of the event must be taken into account; it did not impose a heightened standard of proof. The approach in In re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563 and the formulation in In re Dellow’s Will Trusts [1964] 1 WLR 451 were adopted.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The evidence of the attesting witnesses was rejected. Their account was inconsistent with the deceased’s confirmed and paid flight booking, her established practice of arranging important legal matters professionally, the contemporaneous power of attorney and nomination, and her later statement that she was considering making a will. Their evidence was also hesitant, rehearsed and lacking in convincing detail.
3. The expert evidence was inconclusive overall. The court preferred the assessment of the claimant’s expert, but treated the handwriting evidence as equally consistent with forgery or genuineness. That evidence was therefore weighed with the other evidence and did not determine the case independently.
4. Considering the evidence as a whole, the court concluded without hesitation that the deceased had not signed the purported will and that her signature was forged. It was unnecessary to determine how or when the document came into existence. The claimant’s claim for relief therefore failed.
5. Video-conferencing evidence. Under CPR rule 32.3, permission to use video-conferencing evidence is required. Applications should, wherever practicable, be made well before the hearing, in accordance with the relevant practice direction, so that objections, listing and technical arrangements can be addressed without disrupting the trial.