Financial Risks of Baseless Will Challenges: Landmark High Court Ruling Warning

By – Emma Ironside

Leading national law firm Clarke Willmott LLP is highlighting the importance of having proper grounds before contesting a Will, following a recent High Court ruling that underscores the financial risks of baseless challenges.

In Burgess v Whittle, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, ordered the defendant, Julie Whittle, to pay £109,000 towards the legal costs of an eight-year dispute over a 2014 Will on grounds including undue influence and testamentary capacity.

The Judge described Whittle’s conduct as “grossly unreasonable”, noting she pursued her challenge for eight years without undertaking meaningful investigation, and only conceded the day before trial, after the claimant had travelled from Australia.

Emma Ironside, from Clarke Willmott’s private client litigation team, who represented the claimant Fiona Burgess, said: “This ruling is a clear reminder that contesting a professionally drafted Will without proper grounds can carry significant financial consequences.

“Anyone considering a dispute over a Will must ensure there is solid evidence to support their claim. Speculative challenges, particularly those that are prolonged, can be extremely costly and ultimately unsuccessful, as this case demonstrates.”

The dispute arose following the death of Elizabeth Rowell in April 2017, with disagreements between claimant Fiona and her sister Julie Whittle over which of their mother’s Wills – one made in 1984 and the second in 2014 – should be admitted to probate and who should administer the estate.

Julie challenged the Will by seeking to propound the earlier 1984 Will, arguing that the later 2014 Will was invalid on the grounds of alleged lack of capacity due to early-stage dementia, undue influence, and procedural irregularities in its execution.

However, in his ruling, Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, propounded the 2014 Will in solemn form, granting Fiona Burgess the legal authority to administer the estate under its terms.

Whittle has been ordered to pay indemnity costs, meaning she will be responsible for most, if not all, of Fiona Burgess’ legal expenses, estimated at over £109,000, with any remaining costs recoverable from the estate.

The court rejected arguments that Whittle’s actions fell under the second probate exception, which can sometimes allow a losing party to avoid costs if their investigation into a Will’s validity was reasonable. The judge concluded there was no reasonable basis to suspect that the professionally drafted Will was invalid.

“The ruling serves as a cautionary reminder: challenging a Will without proper evidence is both costly and legally risky, and parties should carefully consider the strength of their case before proceeding,” added Emma Ironside.

Julie Whittle claimed her mother lacked testamentary capacity, alleging she did not fully understand the nature of her assets or the effect of the 2014 Will. The court rejected this, confirming Elizabeth Rowell had full testamentary capacity when making the Will, and upheld its validity in solemn form.

Senior associate, Emma was supported by solicitor Ellie Bond, and overseen by Bonita Walters, partner and head of Clarke Willmott’s Contentious Trusts & Probate team.

Clarke Willmott’s contested probate team advises executors, trustees, beneficiaries, and other parties involved in Will disputes, providing guidance on issues including testamentary capacity.

The firm has seven offices across the country in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, London, Manchester, Southampton and Taunton. For more information visit www.clarkewillmott.com