header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 April 2007 / Adam Cloherty , Paul Hewitt
Issue: 7270 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Contesting validity

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Paul Hewitt and Adam Cloherty report on recent cases involving forgery and stale claims on insolvent estates

In O’Brien v Seagrave [2007] EWHC 788 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 56 (Apr) the claimant had been the deceased’s partner for 12 years before his death in January 2005. However, following the deceased’s death, the defendants—the deceased’s long estranged ex-wife, J, and her son, the deceased’s step-son, L—produced a purported will in which the deceased apparently left his entire estate to L and L’s children. The defendants procured probate of the will in September 2005.

The claimant alleged the purported will was a forgery on the basis that the deceased could not have been at L’s house at the time the will was said to have been executed there—it was apparently witnessed by L’s partner and a friend. She commenced proceedings for the revocation of probate and a declaration that the will was invalid. Part of the motivation for the claimant’s claim was that her Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) claim

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll