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.