Alicia Lopez Batiller v Clive Edwards & Ors

A will is invalid if it was not duly witnessed by two witnesses as required by section 9 (c) of the Wills Act 1837. The court may determine whether a purported witness signed by evaluating the evidence, including handwriting expertise, on the balance of probabilities. Strong and persuasive evidence that a purported witness did not sign is sufficient to establish that the statutory formalities were not met. Once that issue disposes of the validity challenge, it is unnecessary to determine alternative grounds or evidential issues.

The claimant challenged her late mother-in-law’s December 2012 will, under which the residuary estate, including Hillcrest, was left to the claimant’s nephew. The challenge alleged undue influence, forgery and lack of due execution. Probate had been granted in January 2024. The only direct evidence of signing came from the first defendant, while both purported witnesses had died. Handwriting experts disagreed about the testator’s signature, but the evidence concerning one purported witness’s signature was substantially stronger. The central issue was whether the will had been duly witnessed under section 9 (c) of the Wills Act 1837.

The court declared the December 2012 will invalid. The decision turned on the failure to prove that it had been duly witnessed.

1. Statutory formalities. Section 9 (c) of the Wills Act 1837 required the will to be duly witnessed by two witnesses. A finding that one purported witness did not sign was therefore sufficient to invalidate the will.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The first defendant was the only direct witness to the alleged signing. His admissions concerning the use of a false NHS Covid pass and an edited passport justified caution before accepting his evidence on contentious matters without corroboration.
3. Handwriting evidence. The expert evidence about the testator’s signature was divided. However, the evidence concerning Stuart Youd’s signature was strong and persuasive. The relevant signature was virtually identical to a known signature on Mr Youd’s 2015 will, despite wide variation in his known signatures, and the expert considered it highly probable that the questioned signature had not been written by him. No contrary expert evidence was adduced on that issue.
4. Conclusion and order. On the balance of probabilities, Mr Youd had not signed the will. It was consequently not duly witnessed by two witnesses and was invalid. The court did not need to determine the remaining issues, including the metadata of documents submitted for probate. Any consequential applications, including costs, were to be made by written submissions within 14 days of hand down.