Contesting a Will: Biria v Biria [2024]

The recent case of Biria v Biria [2024] considered the issues which can be raised when contesting a will. This includes mental testamentary capacity, undue influence and fraud.

In this case, the deceased, Mr Biria, was 97 years old when he passed away in 2022. He passed away having amassed an estate worth around £17m including assets in England, America and Iraq. The claimant who contested the will was the deceased’s son. The defendants were his six siblings and their children as well as an American advisor of the deceased, Mr Scott.

Hayley Gaffney, Associate at Coodes, explores this case and the issues which can be raised when contesting a will.

Contesting a will

Disputes relating to the validity of wills can vary greatly. All situations and family dynamics are different so no two will disputes are the same.

Will formats and content can vary widely from homemade wills to those professionally drafted. Some appear relatively simple and others can be fairly complicated. More complex wills can, for example, involve large numbers of beneficiaries (including children) and individuals with significant assets but this isn’t always the case. Sometimes even the most simple seeming wills are not as straightforward as they may appear. The homemade will, drawn up without any legal expertise, is unfortunately still prevalent and these generally lead to more issues than professionally drafted wills.

There are a number of grounds people can use to attempt to contest the validity of wills. The five most commonly argued are:

• Lack of knowledge and approval
• Lack of testamentary capacity
• Lack of due execution
• Undue influence
• Fraud or forgery

The claim in the case of Biria v Biria

This claim focused on a will signed by the deceased in 2022 shortly before his death. The claimant, Ali, argued that his father did not have the requisite testamentary capacity to be able to make a valid will at that time. He also asserted that two of his siblings had exerted undue influence over their father to procure the will leading to Ali being left out.

In addition, Ali argued that those two siblings had poisoned their father’s mind against him. This led to his father describing Ali as a ‘bad person, a dangerous person’ in the later years of his life. While based on what Ali said were untrue assumptions, this ultimately seemed to be a leading cause to Ali being left out of the will. Poisoning someone’s mind in this way to procure a will is known as fraudulent calumny.

Ali also asserted that the American advisor, Mr Scott, had ‘added fuel to the fire’ by suggesting that Ali had skimmed profits off the family business for years.

The legal process

Interestingly, none of the defendants engaged with the legal process or attended trial. This is very unusual – especially given what was at stake. This lack of engagement and involvement by the defendants effectively gave Ali a ‘free shot’ at trial.

The court heard evidence of the deceased’s capacity and the great lengths that the medical expert had to go to to see him. Evidence was presented that Ali’s two siblings did everything they could to stop this meeting happening. When it did happen, they refused to leave his side.

Furthermore, the Court of Protection had been involved pre-death in 2021 after Ali raised concerns about the deceased’s finances and his siblings’ involvement with them. These concerns appeared reasonable given that £16m in cheques had been paid out purportedly by the deceased weeks before his capacity assessment took place.

The result

The result was based on that medical evidence and Ali’s evidence alongside the lack of active defence to the claim. It was found that the deceased did not have the necessary testamentary capacity to understand and approve the contents of the will. This was to such an extent that it aroused the suspicion of the court as to the validity of the will.

The court also found that the siblings’ behaviour equated to undue influence. This meant that the court found in Alis’ favour that the will was invalid. Broadly, this meant that the court deemed the will to be a document not prepared by the deceased of his own volition. Instead, it was orchestrated by two of Ali’s siblings.

Despite the will being found to be invalid, the claim as to fraudulent calumny, which is notoriously difficult to prove, failed. This was because the court did not find that the allegations against Ali were put in the deceased’s head. Instead, it was considered that they were created in the deceased’s own mind, and he was already suffering from dementia. Whilst these thoughts may have routed originally from comments made by Mr Scott, they were not made by the siblings.

Contesting a will

Proving the validity or invalidity of a will is a very complex process. Each case has its own nuances and details which make it unique. There are a number of factors to consider and different grounds which can be investigated for contesting a will.

Getting a specialist on board at an early stage is key and our Inheritance Disputes team are here to help. Fill in our online contact form today and the most appropriate member of the team will get back to you.