Home

Your contentious probate specialists.

About Us
PPL Solicitors was founded in 2022 by Louise Sackey.

Our practice specialises in litigation and specifically around these following areas:

• Contesting wills;
• Bringing and defending claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act
1975;
• Executor/Administrator disputes;
• Trustee disputes; and
• Proprietary estoppel or trust claims relating to property.

The above issues often arise when people are already dealing with a death and therefore require
understanding and sensitivity along with consideration of what the client is hoping to achieve. we
always put our clients first by listening to their concerns, discuss the options and then aim to
resolve disputes in the most effective way possible for everyone involved.

We also have significant experience dealing with professional negligence including claims
against solicitors, accountants and surveyors, property litigation, insolvency litigation and
general commercial litigation all of which helps with providing well rounded commercial advice
to clients.

As litigators its important to take a commercial view to the advice being given but to always
consider the client's concerns and what they are hoping to achieve. Doing so results in great
relationships between ourselves, clients and referrers.

We are also keen to building lasting relationships with additional will writers and probate
practitioners.

Testimonials (on the about us page):

Here is what our introducers and clients say about us:

“Include quote” - source 1

“Include quote” - source 2
“Include quote” - source 3

About Louise:
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/louise-sackey-10a88868
Email: louise.sackey@pplsolicitors.co.uk

Our Services

Contentious Probate:
Welcome to PPL Solicitors, the practice founded by solicitor and litigation expert - Louise
Sackey, specialising in contentious probate. This area of law deals with disputes that arise
regarding the estates of deceased persons. Such disputes can be emotionally taxing and
complex, highlighting the need for expert legal guidance to clarify the process and ease the
burden during these challenging times.

This overview will explain what contentious probate involves and the role of a solicitor in
navigating these disputes effectively.

Understanding Contentious Probate and the Role of a Solicitor

Contentious probate occurs when disagreements arise over the validity of a Will or the
distribution of an estate in the England and Wales. Such disputes may occur if someone
believes they have been unfairly treated in a Will, or suspects that the will was created under
duress or lacked the requisite legal formalities. These situations can lead to court
interventions to determine the validity of the Will.

In these instances, the expertise of a solicitor is invaluable. Solicitors advocate for their
clients' interests, offering advice on legal options available, including contesting the Will,
negotiating settlements, or securing court orders to safeguard clients' rights.

Scenarios Leading to Contentious Probate

Contentious probate can arise under various circumstances, including:

- Disappointed expectations of a beneficiary.

- Conflicts involving executors, including disputes over their appointment or conduct.
- Perceived inequities in lifetime gifts by the deceased or unfulfilled promises of provision in
a Will.
- Disagreements over property ownership or asset valuation.

Dealing with Intestacy

When an individual dies without a Will in the UK, it is known as intestacy. The law then
dictates who inherits the estate, which can lead to disputes, particularly where substantial
assets are involved or the intestacy rules do not reflect the deceased's wishes. Cohabitants
and step-children, who are not automatically recognised under these rules, may need to
claim provision from the estate. Such disputes are still classified as contentious probate.

In all these situations, consulting with a specialised solicitor is crucial to managing and
resolving these complex issues. At PPL Solicitors, we are dedicated to ensuring that you and
your loved ones receive the guidance and support necessary to achieve a fair and just
resolution. If you believe that an estate is being mishandled, or a will does not accurately
reflect the wishes of the deceased, please contact us for expert assistance.

Want to chat through a case or about your circumstances? - (link to contact)

Blog

Blog 1:

A caveat has been obtained, should I issue a warning?

Once a Caveat is issued the usual process would be to try and engage with the person who
issued the Caveat, known as the Caveator, in order to see why they have obtained the Caveat
and if it can be removed by agreement. It is usual for a Caveat to be obtained whilst the
parties, or their solicitors, investigate the validity of a will or any claims against the estate
and obtain information from the will writer, witnesses and the Deceased’s medical notes.
Ultimately if removal of the Caveat cannot be agreed, then the next stage may be to issue a
Warning at the Probate Registry.

Although both Caveats and Warnings are theoretically considered as non-contentious under

the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, the issuing and effects of Caveats and Warnings is

usually very contentious and can often lead to court proceedings. As such it is appropriate to

give some consideration as to whether it would be appropriate to serve the Caveator with a

Warning before doing so in order to try and avoid any court proceedings.

Warnings

If a Warning is served the Caveator has 14 days to undertake either of the following options:

1. File and Appearance at the Probate Registry; or

2. Issue a Summons for Directions at the Probate Registry.

If the Caveator does neither of these then the matter can proceed to probate.

Filing an Appearance

In order to file an Appearance, the party being Warned needs to complete Form 5. Form 5 is

not particularly detailed and only requires the Caveator to provide details of their interests

together with the Caveator’s interest. You would however expect to receive some

information on why the Appearance is being entered.

Section 44 (13) of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 states:

‘Unless a registrar of the Principal Registry by order made on summons otherwise directs,

any caveat in respect of which an appearance to a warning has been entered shall remain in

force until the commencement of a probate action’

Therefore, once an Appearance is filed the parties cannot obtain probate without an order

from the Court or the Probate Registry.

Summons for Directions

A Summons for Directions should be used when the party issued with the Warning wants the

Probate Registry to do something but does not necessarily want to contest the Will. An

example of this might be where both parties are named as Executors in the Will but do not

think that the other is a suitable Executor. In this circumstance the party being Warned could

apply to the Probate Registry by a Summons for Directions for the Probate Registry to

consider who should obtain the Grant.

Under Sections 44 (7) of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 the Probate Registry have

the power to discontinue the Caveat should it consider it reasonable to do so.

So, what do we do ?

Given the fact that once an Appearance is issued the Grant can only be obtained with an

order of the Court or Probate Registry before issuing a Warning, we would usually write to

the Caveator asking that they remove it. Often this leads to correspondence between the

parties regarding why the Caveator feels that Grant should not be obtained which means

that both parties then have the opportunity to consider each parties position before they take

any further steps. It may be necessary to allow the Caveator time to fully investigate the

estate (by obtaining information from the will writer, witnesses and the Deceased’s medical

notes) and provide a Letter of Claim before taking any further steps.

This often leads to the parties undertaking the Pre-Action Protocol or even mediation and

resolving the dispute without the need of court proceedings.

Whilst this can be seen as frustrating to the parties wanting to obtain the Grant is often

quicker and less expensive than making an application to court.

Are there any other options than a Warning ?

A difficulty can often arise when the Caveator refuses to correspond with us meaning that

we cannot try to understand why they obtained the Caveat in the first place and advise our

client upon any potential claims against the estate. Or sometimes people will issue Caveats

in circumstances where they are not required, such as when they intend to bring a claim

under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 but still refuse or fail

to remove the Caveat when advised of this.

In these circumstances instead of issuing a Warning the parties could consider making an

application to the Probate Registry by Summons for an order that he Caveator show just

cause for the continuance of the Caveat. The advantage of this is that the Probate Registry

also have the discretion to decide who should pay the costs of this application and we have

received orders from the Probate Registry that the Caveator pays the costs of the

application where it considered that the Caveat was not justifiable.

The risk with this application is that the Caveator responds to the application setting out

their reasons for the Caveat and the Probate Registry decides that it should remain in place.

Conclusion

Sometimes it will be necessary for a party to take further steps in order to obtain the Grant

and progress the administration of the estate. However, if a Warning is issued too early the

Caveator may feel that they have no option but to issue an Appearance to protect their

position (a common reason for this is when are still obtaining information to complete their

investigations).

It is therefore sensible to consider all the factors and try to engage with the Caveator before

Warning is issued. Not only will this hopefully avoid the need for court proceedings, but it will
also help with claiming the costs of any court proceedings if you can show the court that you

have acted reasonably in trying to resolve any issues but the Caveator has not.

Blog 2: What’s a death bed gift and are they valid ?

The usual procedure for making a will is set out in the Wills Act 1937 which requires that in

order for a will to be valid it must be:

● In writing and either signed by the testator, or by another person in their presence and

by their direction; and

● Signed (or the signature acknowledged by the testator) in the presence of two or

more independent witnesses, who are present at the same time and who must also

attest and sign the Will.

However sometimes it’s not possible to make a last minute will or people decide in their last

hours that they would like to make a gift. This is known as ‘Donatio Mortis Causa’ which is

essentially a gift given by someone expecting or contemplating death and is more

commonly referred to as a death bed gift.

In order for a death bed gift to be valid and to override the requirements of the Wills Act

1937 the gift must meet the following requirements:

1. the maker of the gift was contemplating their impending death when the gift was

made;

2. the maker of the gift intended that the gift would only take effect if and when their

death occurred and that otherwise it could be revoked;

3. the maker of the gift delivered the gift to the recipient (by handing over the deeds to a

property for example); and

4. the maker of the gift had capacity to do so.

Keeling v Keeling 2017

A recent case that dealt with the issue of whether a gift was in fact a valid death bed gift

was the 2017 case of Keeling v Keeling. In this case the Deceased died without a will and

was survived by two brothers and the children of a third deceased sibling.

As she died without a will the estate was set to be shared with the two brothers and the

children of the Deceased’s sibling each receiving a third of the Deceased’s share under the

Rules of Intestacy.

However, one brother had applied for and received Letters of Administration and had

transferred the Deceased’s property into his name on the basis that the Deceased had told

him that she wanted him to have the property upon her death. Unsurprisingly the other

beneficiaries were not happy with this and contested it.

In this case there were several factors that persuaded the court that it was not a valid death

bed gift including;

1. The brother was inconsistent in accounting the events that took place:

2. The Deceased wasn’t actually considered to be contemplating death at the time of

the purported gift;

3. Whilst the Deceased had handed her brother the Deeds, as he later provided these to

her solicitors he was considered to have been looking after the Deeds ; and

4. The Deceased had recently had the opportunity to make a will but refused to do so.

It can be seen that it would be quite easy for a person to allege that they were given property

by a deceased person especially if there were no witnesses at the time. The court are

therefore likely to highly scrutinise the evidence provided by the person who received the

gift. They are also likely to want to consider the deceased’s previous testamentary wishes,

the relationships of the deceased, the behavior of the deceased before the gift was made,

the deceased’s health (before and at the time of the gift) and their capacity at the time the

gift was made.

Cases where a death bed gift has been held to be valid by the court can be hard to find. One

such case is the case of Sen v Headley [1991] Ch 425. In this case the Claimant was a close

friend of the Deceased. 3 days before his death she had asked him what would happen to

the house upon his death and he stated: ‘The house is yours, Margaret. You have the keys.

They are in your bag. The deeds are in the steel box.’

Another is the case of the case of Vallee v Birchwood [2013] EWHC 1449 (Ch) which was

also a successful case. In this case the Claimant was the adopted daughter of the Deceased

who lived in France. When she had visited him, she had confirmed that she would return at

Christmas. The Deceased responded to say that he did not expect to live that long and that

he wanted her to have his house when he died. He therefore gave her the title deeds to his

property and a key. He died 4 months later without living a will. This issue of whether or not

this amounted to Donatio Mortis Causa was ultimately put to the court and the court decided

that it did. This was even appealed to the Court of Appeal who also confirmed that it was a

valid Donatio Mortis Causa.

It can therefore be seen that the time frame of the gift is not as important as the requirement

for a person to be contemplating their impending death.

If the court do determine that a Donatio Mortis Causa was a valid gift then the Executors or

Administrators will be held as the trustees of that gift on behalf of the donee.

Blog 3: E Signatures & Wills – Is it actually going to happen?

Whilst most areas are moving forward with electronic documents, signatures and paperless

processes the area of Wills is still heavily reliant upon paper.

This is because Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 requires a Will be in writing and signed by the

testator. The Probate Registry also require an original copy of the Will in order to issue a

Grant of Probate. If the original Will cannot be found then the Probate Registry’s permission

is needed to rely upon a copy of a Will.

This means that as it stands a Will must be printed off, signed and stored.

It is however recognised that there would be an advantage to Wills being signed with E-

Signatures as it would mean that they could be signed more quickly and that storage and

location of the Will may not be an issue.

However there are rightly concerns regarding the use of E-Signatures for Wills which may

make it much easier to prepare a fraudulent Will or change an existing Will. It is however

noted that many of the arguments currently used in order to contest a Will such as the lack

of capacity or undue influence would remain the same regardless of whether or not the Will

was signed using an E Signature.

If E -Signatures were to be allowed it may be the case that whilst parties may currently need

to get expert hand writing evidence they may in the future need to obtain evidence upon how

the E-Signature was obtained.

What can E Signatures they currently be used for?

Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS) already says that an electronic signature cannot be

denied legal validity simply because it is electronic, and that electronic signatures are

admissible in evidence in legal proceedings, but it has not been widely cited in case law.

The Law Commission are however pushing forward with the implementation of E -Signatures

in all areas and a recent report confirmed that electronic signatures can be used for legal

documents.

What is an E-Signature?

The European Commission defines it as ‘an electronic indication of a person’s intent to

agree to the content of a document or a set of data to which the signature relates’
The basic forms of electronic signatures are simply typed names and digital images of

handwritten signatures which are clearly too simple and susceptible to fraud. Other more

secure E -Signatures are ones which involve passwords, PINs, biometric signatures and

encrypting keys.

When can we expect to be using them?

As the topic seems to be on the Law Commissions agenda it’s expected that one day it may

well become common practice.

However before it becomes common practice there would need to be change in legislation

allowing this and suitable technology in place providing security. Whilst the technology may

be possible in order for change in legalisation to be made there may need to be progress in

the use and security of electronic signatures. However in an era where you can secure your

phone with your finger print the technology may not be a problem.

Even though it may be sometime before a Will can be signed electronically there no reason

why other documents used in the will writing process cannot be signed electronically. In an

area of law where time is of the essence, in order to ensure that Wills are created within an

appropriate time frame the use of electronic signatures can streamline and speed up this

process ensuring that it is more efficient and any delay in waiting for instructions is reduced.

If you would like more information relating to contentious probate matters, please contact

us.

Contact / Submit a case

Email: louise.sackey@pplsolicitors.co.uk
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/louise-sackey-10a88868/
Footer:

PPL Solicitors is an SRA Regulated Law Firm (8001715).

Registered company: 13647618