Litigation Letter
Revocation of probate
Gill v Woodall and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1430; [2011] WLR (D) 328; TLR 1 February
In her application to revoke the grant of probate to her mother’s will the claimant raised three arguments as to why she should
be entitled to the family farm, the main asset in her mother’s will. First, although the will had been properly executed by
her mother she had not known or approved its terms; second, if that were wrong, her mother’s approval had been obtained through
the undue influence of her husband; and third, if that were wrong, and the will was valid that the claimant claimed the farm
on the basis of proprietary estoppel. The judge had approached the issue of knowledge and approval on a two-stage basis. He
asked, first, whether the claimant had established sufficient facts to excite the suspicion of the court, which really amounted
to establishing a prima facie case that the testatrix did not know of and approve the contents of the will. Second, having
held that the claimant had excited the suspicion of the court, he went onto consider whether or not those suspicions had been
delayed by the RSPCA who supported the will as beneficiaries. The judge revoked the grant of probate on the ground, inter
alia, of undue influence.