Patel v Patel

Forgery allegations in probate proceedings are decided on the ordinary civil standard of the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of an allegation affects the inherent probability of the alleged event and the strength of evidence required to establish it, but does not create a heightened standard of proof.

The court may assess the authenticity of a will by examining the whole evidential picture, including credibility, contemporaneous documents, handwriting evidence, physical document testing and motive. Where a will is found to be forged, questions of knowledge and approval do not arise.

The claimant sought probate in solemn form of an alleged will made by his mother in 2005, under which he was sole executor and beneficiary. He also sought revocation of a 2012 grant relating to an earlier will made in favour of his brother, the defendant.

The defendant alleged that the 2005 will had been fabricated using a genuine, earlier signature of the deceased and that the attesting witnesses had given false evidence. The central issues were whether the will was genuine and, if so, whether the deceased knew and approved its contents.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The burden of proving forgery lay on the defendant. Applying the guidance in Re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563, the applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of forgery was relevant to assessing inherent probabilities and the evidence needed to satisfy the court, but it did not impose a higher standard.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The claimant’s account was implausible and contradicted by his earlier correspondence and conduct in related proceedings. The evidence of the claimant and two attesting witnesses was materially damaged by lies about a pre-trial meeting and alleged collusion. The evidence of another supporting witness was not independently reliable. The court accepted handwriting and electrostatic detection evidence indicating that the deceased’s signature was genuine but older than 2005 and that another signature impression appeared beneath it. Evidence concerning toner and ink sequencing was treated as inconclusive.
3. Similar-fact allegations. Allegations that the claimant had forged other documents were not determined. They were disputed, insufficiently pleaded and supported by incomplete or inadmissible evidence, and determining them risked inconsistent decisions in other proceedings. They were an inappropriate distraction from the central question of the authenticity of the will.
4. Conclusion and disposal. Taking the evidence as a whole, the court found that the claimant had forged the will using a genuine earlier signature and had procured false attestation evidence. The subsidiary issue of knowledge and approval therefore did not arise. The claim for probate and revocation of the earlier grant was dismissed.