"the Defendant has no reasonable cause of action against the Claimant; and the Defendant has no real prospect of succeeding on her Defence or Counterclaim…."
"I intend to apply for an order that: The Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim be struck out as against the Claimant pursuant to the court's wide case management powers andCPR Part 3.4 (2)(a). And the Claimant do have summary judgment against the Defendant pursuant toCPR Part 24 , because the Defendant has no reasonable cause of action against the Claimant; and the Defendant has no real prospect of succeeding on her Defence or Counterclaim for the reasons set out in the Particulars of Claim and Witness statement of the Claimant dated2 September 2022 and there is no other reason for the case to be disposed of at trial."
"[The Deceased] has effectively severed all ties with the UK and his family…" "since it appears [the Deceased] wants nothing further to do with his immediate family any further attempts seem futile, more particularly having tried in vain for nearly 5 years to have some form of dialogue [the Defendant] and the children believe [the Deceased] has effectively severed all ties with his immediate family and the UK." "
"First there are a number of peripheral facts: • That Mr Babulal Gohil and Mrs Kamla Gohil have been separated since 2001 • Mr Babulal Gohil had also cut ties with all of his children • There was particular enmity between Mr Babulal Gohil and his son, Bhadresh, as well as his wife. • Mr Babulal Gohil had lived in India since 2001 and the only people he considered as his family, whom he visited and stayed with in London, were Varsha Gohil and her children. • The family history is well documented"
"You requested our confirmation that this file, M0009158872, originally sent to you on15 June 2021 had remained unopened. The file was returned to us in June 2022 in its original packaging and did not appear to have been opened."
"It is essential …that a testator [a] shall understand the nature of the Act and its effects; [b] shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing; [c] shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect; and, with a view to the latter object, [d] that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, pervert his sense of right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties — that no insane delusion shall influence his will in disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of it which, if the mind had been sound, would not have been made."
"There is no serious dispute about the law. The approach that I should adopt may be summarised as follows: i. In a case of a testamentary disposition of assets, unlike a lifetime disposition, there is no presumption of undue influence; ii. Whether undue influence has procured the execution of a will is therefore a question of fact; iii. The burden of proving it lies on the person who asserts it. It is not enough to prove that the facts are consistent with the hypothesis of undue influence. What must be shown is that the facts are inconsistent with any other hypothesis. In the modern law this is, perhaps no more than a reminder of the high burden, even on the civil standard, that a claimant bears in proving undue influence as vitiating a testamentary disposition; iv. In this context undue influence means influence exercised either by coercion, in the sense that the testator’s will must be overborne, or by fraud; v. Coercion is pressure that overpowers the volition without convincing the testator’s judgment. It is to be distinguished from mere persuasion, appeals to ties of affection or pity for future destitution, all of which are legitimate. Pressure which causes a testator to succumb for the sake of a quiet life, if carried to an extent that overbears the testator’s free judgment discretion or wishes, is enough to amount to coercion in this sense; vi. The physical and mental strength of the testator are relevant factors in determining how much pressure is necessary in order to overbear the will. The will of a weak and ill person may be more easily overborne than that of a hale and hearty one. As was said in one case simply to talk to a weak and feeble testator may so fatigue the brain that a sick person may be induced for quietness’ sake to do anything. A ‘drip drip’ approach may be highly effective in sapping the will; vii There is a separate ground for avoiding a testamentary disposition on the ground of fraud. The shorthand used to refer to this species of fraud is ‘fraudulent calumny’. The basic idea is that if A poisons the testator’s mind against B, who would otherwise be a natural beneficiary of the testator’s bounty, by casting dishonest aspersions on his character, then the will is liable to be set aside; vii. The essence of fraudulent calumny is that the person alleged to have been poisoning the testator’s mind must either know that the aspersions are false or not care whether they are true or false. In my judgment if a person believes that he is telling the truth about a potential beneficiary then even if what he tells the testator is objectively untrue, the will is not liable to be set aside on that ground alone; viii. The question is not whether the court considers that the testator’s testamentary disposition is fair because, subject to statutory powers of intervention, a testator may dispose of his estate as he wishes. The question, in the end, is whether in making his dispositions, the testator has acted as a free agent."