[2026] EWHC 2086 (Ch)Case No PT-2025-CDF-000086IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN WALESPROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)In the estate of Dorothy May Edwards deceasedMold Justice CentreLaw CourtsMoldCH7 1AEDate 06/08/2026
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JARMAN KCSitting as a judge of the High Court
Between
ALICIA LOPEZ BATILLERClaimantCLIVE EDWARDSDefendantsSTEVEN BEALESDefendantCLIVE EDWARDSDefendantAs personal representative of the estate ofDefendantDorothy May EdwardsDefendantThe Claimant and the First and Third Defendant each appeared in person for in person for The Second Defendant did not appear and was not representedApproved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 6 August 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................HIS HONOUR JUDGE JARMAN KC
HHJ JARMAN KC:
[1]The parties are wife and husband, although they have been estranged for some years. The Claimant occupies a property known as Hillcrest Leeswood in Flintshire under an occupation order made in the family courts. Hillcrest was the home of her late mother in law, Dorothy May Edwards, who died in 2017. In this proceedings the Claimant challenges the will dated 24 December 2012 of the late Mrs Edwards, for which the Defendant was granted probate in January 2024. The challenge is put on the basis of undue influence, forgery and lack of due execution. Each of the parties represented themselves in the hearing before me.[2]By the December 2012 will, Mrs Edwards’ residuary estate, which essentially comprises Hillcrest, was left to her grandson Steven Beales, the son of her daughter Valerie Beales. It bears what purports to be the signature of Mrs Edwards, and purports to be witnessed by Lucille Ingram, a cousin of the Defendant and Stuart Youd, the partner of Valerie Beales. She married Stuard Youd the following month and died later that year. The December 2012 will refers to her by her married name, although at that time she had not yet married, but clearly was planning to.[3]Mrs Edwards had made a previous will dated 20 August 2012, which was professionally drawn by Legal & Contract Services Ltd, in respect of which no challenge is made. Under that will the residuary estate was left equally between her daughter Valerie Beales and her son, the Defendant.[4]The only direct evidence of the signing of the December 2012 will, and of what became of it since, comes from the Defendant. Both the purported witnesses died within months of each other in 2020. In the course of his oral evidence, he admitted that he had used a fake NHS covid vacation pass to obtain access to licenced premises and had edited his passport for the same purpose. There was photographic evidence of each of these, and of a text which he sent about them which said this:
“Like my editing as I have a jab pass for bars I was given off a guy so I edited my passport pic what you think plus I’m now ten years younger its just the date I cant get quite right but it’ll pass on a door…”
[5]Other allegations of fabricating documents were put to him which he denied, though he had little choice but to accept the allegations in relation to the pass and the passport given the evidence about them. This evidence is sufficient for me to be cautious about accepting his evidence on contentious matters without corroboration.[6]His case is that the December 2012 will was signed at Hillcrest on Christmas eve. He said that his sister was by then terminally ill and wanted to put everything in order. She produced the draft will. They had had discussions before hand, including with his nephew Steven Beales, and it was agreed that he would be left the residuary estate on the basis that Mrs Edwards, and the parties could continue to live at Hillcrest. He says that he was given money by his mother, his sister and his nephew in 2012 and 2013 running to some £80,000. He says that his sister had the draft December 2012 will drawn up. He recalls his mother signing the will, when he, his sister, Lucille Ingram and Stuart Youd were all present, and he saw Lucille Iingram sign, but he did not see Stuart Youd sign. Mr Youd’s address was given as Ballintrae, Padeswood, a couple of miles away, and Ms Ingram’s address was an address in Leeswood.[7]Steven Beales was made second defendant in these proceedings but by order dated 13 April 2026 his defence was struck out as he had indicated that he had no intention of taking any active part in the proceedings. He did not attend the hearing.[8]After the signing the Defendant says that his sister took possession of the will. This was given to him a couple of years later by Stuart Youd and he kept it in a safe at Hillcrest. He says that because of a fear that the Claimant might have access to it, in about 2017 he took it out of the safe and hid it between a gap between wardrobes at Hillcrest. It was only when the issue of probate came up in the family proceedings that he applied for probate. He says he did not do so before because he feared that this may prompt his nephew to want to sell Hillcrest.[9]Both parties instructed handwriting experts who have filed reports and a joint statement. They were not given permission to give oral evidence. They agree that the known signatures of Mrs Edwards are highly variable and the “M” for her middle name May on the December 2012 will is constructed totally different to the “M” in the known signatures. Adam Brand is of the view that it was probable that the signature on the December 2012 will was not written by Mrs Edwards. The fact that the “M” is different may mean that it was a poor forgery but doesn’t mean it was genuine. He says that what is significant is the letter spacing, the fact that the “M” has a garland capital and the formation of the “d.” Mr Brand went on to conclude that the possible author is the Defendant, who denied this when it was put to him in the course of his evidence. He accepts that his handwriting is very similar to that of his late mother, but explains this by saying that it was she who taught him to write.[10]Ruth Myers for the Defendant maintains that the questioned signature was written by the same hand as the known signatures. She poses the question that if it is forged why didn’t the forger conform to the “M” in the known signatures which were clearly different.[11]Mr Brand was also asked to compare the signature of Mr Youd on the December 2012 will against his known signatures. In his report dated 20 June 2025, included in the trial bundles prepared by each of the parties, Mr Brand concluded that there is a wide variation in all the known signatures, yet the signature on the December 2012 will is virtually identical with a known signature on Mr Youd’s will in 2015, which is clearly illustrated when they are placed on top of one another. He says that no two signatures will bear exact replication. He concludes that it is highly probable that the questioned signatures was not written by Mr Youd.[12]No evidence was adduced from Ms Myers on the issue of Mr Youd’s signature. When I enquired of the Defendant about this, he said that he did not ask her for such evidence because he did not think it was in issue.[13]Accordingly, whilst the expert evidence as to the genuineness of Mrs Edwards’ signature on the December 2012 will is divided, the expert evidence before me as to that of Mr Youd is strong and persuasive. In my judgment, that evidence is sufficient for me to conclude on the balance of probabilities that Mr Youd did not sign the December 2012 will. That means that it was not duly witnessed by two witnesses as required by section 9(c) of the Wills Act 1837 and is invalid.[14]If any further support is needed for that conclusion, it comes from the evidence of his two daughters, called by the Claimant to give evidence by video link, albeit of limited support. Kerry Roberts says she visited her father at his home that Christmas Eve until late afternoon and he did not say anything about going to see Mrs Edwards that day, when his wife was terminally ill and it was likely that it would be her last Christmas. Anna Edwards makes similar points, saying that she rang her father that Christmas Eve, and nothing was said about leaving the house. I accept that evidence as far as it goes.[15]The parties raised other issues, including the meta data of the documentation sent for the grant of probate. In light of my conclusion above, it is not necessary to determine such issues.[16]Accordingly I will declare that the December 2012 will is invalid. If either party wishes to make consequential applications arising out of this judgment, such as costs, they should do so by filing and sending to the court written submissions within 14 days of hand down of this judgment, which will then be dealt with on the basis of the written submissions.