Author: Krishna Patel

Fraudulent calumny is a lesser known but powerful ground for challenging a will in contested probate disputes. It arises when one person deliberately poisons the testator’s mind against another potential beneficiary by making false and malicious allegations about their character. Unlike undue influence, fraudulent calumny does not involve coercion but instead relies on deception to manipulate the testator’s decision-making process.

For those facing a potential inheritance dispute, understanding fraudulent calumny is crucial in protecting testamentary freedom and ensuring that a will reflects the true wishes of the deceased.

What Is Fraudulent Calumny?

Fraudulent calumny is a type of fraud that can render a will invalid. It was defined in Re Edwards [2007] WTLR 1387, where Lewison J set out its key elements:

1. False statements – Someone made untrue claims about you to the testator.
2. Dishonesty or recklessness – They knew these claims were false or didn’t care whether they were true.
3. Influence on the testator – The false statements persuade the testator to alter their will to reduce or remove your inheritance.
4. Causation – The will was changed only because of these lies.

The Importance of Dishonesty

A key hurdle in fraudulent calumny cases is proving dishonesty. The Supreme Court, in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan and Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd, clarified that dishonesty is judged using an objective test:

“The fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the individual’s actual state of knowledge or belief. The question of whether the conduct was honest or dishonest is then determined by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people.”

This means that even if the defendant sincerely believed their statements, a claim for fraudulent calumny will fail if they were not acting dishonestly. This was demonstrated in Re Boyes, where a daughter falsely convinced her father that her brothers were untrustworthy, but since she genuinely believed it to be true, the will was upheld.

How Fraudulent Calumny Differs from Undue Influence

Fraudulent calumny and undue influence are often confused but are legally distinct:

Fraudulent Calumny	Undue Influence
Based on lies about another beneficiary	Based on pressure or coercion
The testator believes the lies and changes their will	The testator is forced into changing their will
Requires proof of dishonesty	Requires proof of coercion

Recent Case Law on Fraudulent Calumny

Several recent cases illustrate how courts approach fraudulent calumny in contested probate claims:

1. Whittle v Whittle [2022] EWHC 925 (Ch)

In this case, the testator left almost his entire estate to his daughter, Sonia, while his son, David, received only a few personal items. David alleged that Sonia had falsely accused him of theft and violence, which led their father to disinherit him. The court found:

• The testator left almost his entire estate to his daughter, Sonia, giving his son, David, only a few personal belongings.
• David claimed Sonia falsely told their father he was a thief and violent towards women.
• The court found Sonia had lied to manipulate their father and declared the will invalid.

• Speakman v Muir [2022]

A son challenged three wills made in quick succession by his elderly father, alleging that his father’s household assistant, Julie, had falsely told him that his son had stolen from him. The court found:

• A son challenged three wills made by his father, which gradually cut him out of the estate.
• The father’s household assistant, Julie, had falsely accused him of stealing.
• The judge found the father was emotionally vulnerable and easily influenced, leading to the wills being set aside.

• Nesbitt v Nicholson [2023]

The court reiterated the difficulty of proving fraudulent calumny, confirming that if the defendant genuinely believes what they are saying even if objectively false the claim will fail. This highlights the high burden of proof required to succeed.

These cases highlight that it is not enough to simply express negative opinions about a potential beneficiary, the allegations must be false and the defendant must have acted with dishonesty or reckless disregard for the truth.

How to prove Fraudulent Calumny

A claim for fraudulent calumny requires strong evidence, including:

• Witness statements: Did anyone hear the false allegations being made?
• Legal notes: A solicitor’s records may reveal concerns about influence.
• Previous wills: Showing an unexpected change in inheritance.
• Medical reports: If the testator was vulnerable, they may have been more easily misled.

Defending Against Fraudulent Calumny Claims

If a will is challenged on this ground, the defendant may argue:

• The statements were true or made in good faith
• The testator was aware of all facts and made a rational decision
• The testator had independent legal advice before making the will

Fraudulent calumny remains a complex and high-risk ground for challenging a will, requiring clear evidence of dishonesty and causation. While recent case law highlights the potential success of such claims, the burden of proof remains high.

For an initial consultation, contact Krishna Patel on 01732 446371 or email krishna.patel@wellerslawgroup.com

Inheritance Disputes and Market Volatility: Market Uncertainty is the New Normal

Economic uncertainty affects more than just your portfolio, it can lead to serious family disputes over inheritance. These types of disputes often fall under contentious probate, where disagreements arise over the administration or distribution of an estate. When a loved one dies leaving shares, investments, or business interests, sudden market changes can distort the value of an estate.

This article explores why market volatility matters in probate, how events like Trump’s 2025 tariff proposals impact estate values, and how families can protect themselves.

Why do stock market fluctuations matter in probate?

When a Will divides an estate between fixed and residuary beneficiaries, the value of shares at the date of death or sale can dramatically affect outcomes. For example:

• If shares drop after death but before sale, the total estate value may shrink
• If a fixed legacy is paid first, residuary beneficiaries may receive less or nothing

Disputes often arise when executors delay selling shares, beneficiaries allege poor decision-making and family members believe they’ve been treated unfairly.

Trump’s tariff proposals

More recently you will have seen Donald Trump proposed 10% tariffs on all imports and 25% duties on UK steel and car exports. This news caused a sharp drop in some FTSE-listed manufacturing and export stocks. This is a prime example of how global politics can impact local estates. If a deceased person held stocks in affected companies, their value may have plunged, creating tensions between beneficiaries.

Executors can face accusations of negligence if they wait too long to act or fail to seek professional advice. Yet they also risk criticism for selling too early. It’s a fine balance.

The Broader Economic Impact on Probate

Please be aware that market volatility is not limited to breaking news stories. Economic downturns, inflation, interest rate changes, and sector instability all affect estate valuations. This matters most when:

• The estate includes a large share portfolio
• The Will lacks guidance on investment strategies
• There is no professional executor with financial expertise

During recessions or inflation spikes, disputes often arise over timing, valuations, and asset distribution. Estate planning that once made sense may seem outdated or unfair in new economic conditions. This is why it is important to review wills regularly to ensure that they are drafted as best as they can be.

Legal considerations for executors

Executors have many duties, one such duty is fiduciary. They must act in the best interests of all beneficiaries. Of course, volatile markets make this harder. Claims for breach of duty, maladministration, or unfair distribution are increasing.

Particularly common are applications under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to remove executors seen as ineffective or conflicted. Problems arise when:

• Executors fail to diversify or liquidate high-risk holdings
• There’s a delay in estate administration
• Beneficiaries are not kept informed about losses

Practical tips on avoiding disputes

To reduce the risk of contested probate:

• Ensure valuations are obtained promptly and professionally
• Consider early liquidation of volatile shares
• Keep beneficiaries regularly updated
• Document all decisions and advice taken
• Use independent advisors for high-value portfolios

Looking Ahead: Market Uncertainty Is the New Normal

Whether triggered by political decisions like Trump’s tariffs, inflation shocks, or global events, market instability is here to stay. That means families and executors must be prepared to act swiftly and transparently.

Get Expert Advice

Preparation, communication, and legal guidance are the best tools to avoid long, costly probate battles. If you’re administering an estate that includes shares or business assets or concerned about how to protect your family’s inheritance, we’re here to help.  With offices across London, Kent, and Surrey, Wellers has a dedicated team of probate and probate dispute solicitors ready to support you.

Contact us at enquiries@wellerslawgroup.com or click here to complete an enquiry form or call us on 01732 457575

A guide to Proprietary Estoppel and Contested Probate

Many people assume that if a promise is not in a will, then there’s nothing they can do but that’s not always true.

Perhaps you have spent years relying on this promise whether by working in a family business, caring for a relative, or investing time and money into a property only to be left with nothing. This issue often arises in contested probate cases where individuals have relied on assurances from a family member or a close friend only to discover that the will or estate distribution does not reflect those promises.

Where does that leave you? In these situations, proprietary estoppel can provide a way to enforce that broken promise, ensuring you aren’t unfairly cut out. If this sounds familiar, you may have a legal right to claim what was promised, legally known as proprietary estoppel.

Proprietary estoppel in probate disputes

Proprietary estoppel allows the courts to enforce promises even if they weren’t formally written down. To establish a successful proprietary estoppel claim, the following elements must be proven:

1. A clear representation or promise: the deceased gave you an assurance that certain property or inheritance would be received;
2. Reasonable reliance: you acted in reliance on the promise, believing it to be genuine; and
3. Detriment: you suffered financial or personal disadvantage based on the promise.

This approach was reinforced in Cleave v Cleave [2024], where the court ruled that promises must be clear enough to justify reliance, and the person claiming estoppel must show real loss if the promise isn’t upheld.

How have courts enforced verbal promises in the past?

Many people have successfully challenged estates based on broken promises. Here’s how the courts have ruled in different situations:

I. Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27: A son worked for years on the family farm for little pay, believing he would inherit it. When the father changed his will, the court ruled in the son’s favour, granting a financial remedy to reflect his expectations.

II. Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18: A farmer spent decades working on his relative’s farm based on vague assurances. The court ruled that, despite the lack of an explicit promise, the overall context made it clear that he should inherit.

III. Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210: An employer made repeated verbal promises to an employee about inheritance. When he later cut the employee out of his will, the court ruled that breaking those assurances was unfair.

IV. Henry v Henry [2010] UKPC 3: A man cared for a family member for decades, believing he would inherit their property. The court upheld his claim but reduced his award because he had also benefitted from the arrangement.

V. Winter v Winter [2023] EWHC: Courts won’t uphold claims based on casual remarks or vague conversations. The promise must be serious enough to justify real reliance.

When might a promise not be enforced?

•Existing agreements: In Horsford v Horsford [2020], the court ruled that a claimant cannot “have two bites of the cherry”. If a partnership or shareholder agreement contradicts the alleged promise, an estoppel claim may be significantly weakened or even struck out.

• Unclear or vague promises: If the assurance was too uncertain, or there’s no real evidence that the deceased intended to transfer ownership, a claim may fail.

• Lack of detriment: If you didn’t suffer a real loss, the courts may decide that the promise should not be enforced.

What if proprietary estoppel is not an option?

Even if proprietary estoppel isn’t the best route, you may still have alternative legal claims, such as:
• The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975: If you were financially dependent on the deceased but left out of the will, you may be entitled to a fair share of the estate.

• Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act (TOLATA) 1996: If you contributed financially to a property expecting ownership, you may have a claim.

• Challenging the Validity of the Will: If the will was made under undue influence, fraud, or without proper mental capacity, it may be possible to challenge its validity.

What should you do next?

If you believe you were made a promise but have been left out of a will, acting quickly is crucial. Here’s what you can do:

• Identify key witnesses: Who heard the promises? Did the deceased discuss it with anyone else?
• Gather evidence: Are there emails, texts, or documents that support your claim?
• Assess alternative legal routes: Could another type of claim strengthen your case?

Take action today, don’t wait until it’s too late. Don’t let a broken promise leave you with nothing. Get expert advice now. For an initial consultation, contact me, Krishna Patel

Call: 01732 446371

Email: krishna.patel@wellerslawgroup.com