Carlton Aldo Watts v Jobyna Watts

Where a will contains an attestation clause and appears to have been duly executed, strong evidence is required to establish invalid execution. The effective burden therefore rests on the party alleging forgery. The court must assess the authenticity of the particular document before it, giving appropriate weight to reliable factual and expert evidence. Circumstantial matters concerning family relationships, earlier testamentary arrangements or a beneficiary’s conduct may have limited relevance where the central issue is whether the testator signed the will.

The claimant, Carlton Aldo Watts, challenged the will of his deceased father, Eustace Fitzgerald Watts. The will dated 8 February 2000 left the entire estate to the defendant, Jobyna Watts, the deceased’s widow. The claimant alleged that the deceased’s signature was forged and relied on expert and circumstantial evidence, including an earlier will said to have benefited him.

The preliminary issue ordered for trial was whether the 2000 will was a forgery. The court considered the evidence of the solicitor who witnessed execution, the parties and an expert document examiner.

1. Burden and due execution. Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 required the will to be in writing, signed or acknowledged by the testator, and attested by two witnesses. Although an attestation clause was not strictly necessary, a will regular on its face and apparently duly executed required strong evidence before the court would find invalid execution. The effective burden lay on Carlton, applying Sherrington v Sherrington [2005] EWCA Civ 326.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The solicitor’s detailed recollection of taking instructions and witnessing execution was accepted. The defendant’s lack of recollection and the claimant’s circumstantial evidence did not justify an inference of forgery. The alleged trust and the earlier will were of marginal relevance to whether the deceased signed the 2000 will.
3. Expert evidence. The claimant’s expert evidence was rejected because it lacked appropriate handwriting comparators, relied on unsupported conclusions and failed to explain the relevance of alleged variations. The defendant’s expert evidence, based on numerous handwriting and signature samples and identifying no significant differences, was accepted. The court found that the signatures were fluent free-hand productions and that the alleged tracing theory had no evidential basis.
4. Disposition. The court found that the 2000 will was not a forgery.