Inheritance disputes are increasingly common, and few cases illustrate the risks more starkly than the High Court’s decision in the Anju Patel litigation, concerning the £600,000 estate of Laxmikant Patel. The court rejected a 2021 hospital signed will as “highly suspicious,” reinstating a 2019 will that divided the estate broadly between the three children. The outcome left the principal beneficiary, Anju Patel, facing an adverse costs order reported to exceed £400,000, on top of her own legal fees.
Background
Laxmikant Patel died in October 2021. His August 2021 will—made while he was terminally ill and in hospital under Covid restrictions—left almost everything to his eldest daughter, Anju, and just £250 to his other two children. Earlier wills (including 2019) had divided the estate roughly three ways. Those stark differences, combined with the hospital setting, triggered a challenge by the younger daughter, Bhavenetta Stewart Brown.
Three Legal Issues the Court Considered
1) Due Execution of the Will
“Due execution” means the will must be signed and witnessed exactly as required by the Wills Act. The person making the will must sign (or acknowledge their signature) in front of two witnesses, and those witnesses must then sign in the person’s presence. If any of these steps are not followed, the will can fail even if it reflects the person’s true wishes.
How it affects validity:
If the court is not satisfied the will was signed and witnessed correctly, it is invalid. The estate then falls back to an earlier valid will, or if none exists, to intestacy. In the Patel case, the August 2021 hospital signed will was examined closely because of the circumstances in which it was made.
How This Influenced the Judge’s Decision:
Although the witnesses claimed everyone used the same pen, the signatures clearly showed different inks. This suggested the will was not signed in front of both witnesses at the same time, as required. Because the formal signing rules were not met, the court held the will was not properly executed.
2) Testamentary Capacity and Knowledge & Approval
Testamentary capacity means the person making the will understands what a will does, what property they have, and who might expect to benefit. Illness, frailty, or cognitive decline can raise concerns about capacity.
Knowledge and approval means the court must be satisfied the person understood and agreed to the specific contents of the will, especially if it makes a major change from earlier wills or is created in unusual or concerning circumstances.
How they affect validity:
If there is reasonable doubt about capacity or understanding—because the will makes sudden, drastic changes or was made in questionable circumstances—the person trying to prove the will is valid must provide clear evidence that the person truly understood it. If this cannot be shown, the will is set aside and an earlier valid will applies.
In this case, a move from equal shares (2019) to leaving almost everything to one child (2021) raised the level of scrutiny.
How This Influenced the Judge’s Decision:
The 2021 will was made only two months before death while Mr Patel was terminally ill, on oxygen, and under hospital/Covid restrictions. It also represented a significant change from the 2019 will. There was not enough reliable evidence that he fully understood or approved such a major change, so the judge refused to accept the 2021 will and reinstated the 2019 version.
3) Undue Influence / Isolation and the “Cloud of Suspicion”
Undue influence in probate means pressure or coercion that overpowers the person’s free will. It can be difficult to prove. However, even without direct coercion, the court may find a “cloud of suspicion” if the circumstances look unusual—for example, isolation from family, unexpected changes to beneficiaries, or uncertainty over who arranged the will.
How it affects validity:
If suspicious circumstances exist, the person trying to prove the will is valid must provide strong, independent evidence showing the person made the will freely and understood it. If they cannot dispel those concerns, the will may be rejected.
In this case, the combination of a hospital based will made under Covid restrictions, sudden major changes to beneficiaries, and questions about how the will was arranged all raised serious concerns.
How This Influenced the Judge’s Decision:
Hospital isolation, uncertainty around who organised and witnessed the will, defects in execution, and a dramatic departure from earlier wishes together created a highly suspicious picture. The person trying to prove the 2021 will was valid could not address those concerns. As a result, the court rejected the 2021 will entirely.
Why the costs were so high—and how to avoid that outcome
Because the High Court generally follows a “loser pays” rule, defending a suspicious will through to trial can be financially devastating. In the Patel case, the losing party was ordered to pay the other side’s costs—reported as £400,000+—and still had to meet her own legal fees, effectively wiping out her inheritance. Early advice, front loaded evidence, and mediation can dramatically reduce risk and cost.
Why these issues crop up more often now
Modern estates are fertile ground for disputes: higher property values mean more at stake; DIY or rushed wills are common; families are more complex; and older testators may be isolated or vulnerable. The Patel judgment underscores how execution flaws, capacity doubts, and suspicious circumstances have become central battlegrounds in contentious probate.
How BTMK Solicitors Can Help
Early Case Assessment
We quickly identify the strengths and weaknesses of your position, the evidence you will need, and the key legal issues involved—such as execution, capacity, and knowledge and approval.
Mediation Focused Approach
We prioritise negotiation and mediation to minimise cost and stress, while preparing a strong litigation strategy if court action becomes necessary.
Specialist Support
Our contentious probate team offers practical, proportionate advice aimed at protecting your position and reducing conflict at an already difficult time. Contentious probate requires legal expertise, strategy and empathy—qualities our team is known for.
For assistance, contact our Contentious Probate team, led by Adam Fleming and Jessica Dawkins, on 03300 585 222.
Lessons from the Case — Practical Guidance for Families
1) Last minute or Hospital Wills Attract Scrutiny Wills made during serious illness or hospitalisation—especially in restricted conditions like Covid—are more likely to be challenged. Early planning and independent advice help prevent disputes.
2) Major Changes Must Be Properly Explained A will that significantly departs from earlier versions will require strong evidence of the testator’s reasoning. Recording clear instructions and ensuring proper oversight is essential.
3) Signing Errors Can Invalidate a Will
Even small mistakes in witnessing or signing can make a will invalid. Professional supervision of the signing process significantly reduces risk.
Our Private Client team can help ensure your will is correctly drafted and executed. Call to speak to a member of our team on 03300 585 222.
4) Act Promptly Strict time limits apply to certain claims—delays can weaken or even prevent a claim. Seek legal advice as soon as you suspect a dispute may arise.
Seek Specialist Advice Early. Early involvement from a contentious probate specialist improves outcomes, helps preserve evidence and may avoid litigation altogether. For tailored advice, contact our specialist team on 03300 585 222.
