Knowledge and Approval Challenges: Why This Will Dispute Succeeded When Most Fail

A successful challenge against a Will based on lack of knowledge and approval is relatively rare. The courts are reluctant to interfere with a person’s testamentary wishes, particularly where a will has been professionally drafted and properly executed. The recent decision in Elliott v Bateson[1] is therefore a fascinating example of the circumstances in which such a claim can succeed.

As contentious probate practitioners, we are often approached by disappointed beneficiaries who feel that a will “cannot be right”. Unfortunately, suspicion alone is not enough. This case demonstrates both the difficulties claimants face and the type of evidence required to overcome the strong presumption that a professionally prepared will reflects a deceased person’s wishes.

The dispute concerned a 92-year-old testator who had Parkinson’s disease and whose circumstances changed significantly in the months before his death. Whilst there was no challenge to his testamentary capacity, his new will introduced a life interest trust for his wife rather than giving her an outright share of the estate as he had originally intended.

The law in this area is well established. Where a will has been properly executed and prepared by a solicitor, the court will generally presume that the testator knew of and approved its contents. However, if circumstances arise that excite the court’s suspicion, the burden falls on those seeking to uphold the will to prove affirmatively that it truly represented the testator’s intentions.

This is often where claims fail. Even unusual, unfair or unexpected gifts do not necessarily raise concern. English law allows individuals to leave their estate as they see fit, regardless of whether family members consider the outcome harsh or unjust. The question is not whether the will is fair, but whether it genuinely reflects the testator’s wishes.

What made this case different was the evidence surrounding the drafting process. The court accepted that the idea of introducing the life interest trust did not come from the testator himself. Instead, it was suggested by the drafting solicitor during the will making process. Crucially, the judge found that the solicitor failed adequately to explain the consequences of that change. The testator’s original instructions were for his wife to receive 50% of his estate outright. The trust structure fundamentally altered that position by limiting her entitlement to income, while the capital would ultimately pass elsewhere.

The solicitor’s attendance notes recorded that the testator’s wife would be able to have access to the trust funds. However, the trust as drafted did not actually provide her with any automatic right to access the capital. The judge found that the testator was likely to have understood that his wife could draw on the capital if she needed it, when in reality any access would largely depend upon the goodwill of those who would eventually inherit the fund.

The court was particularly concerned that this significant departure from the testator’s original instructions was not properly highlighted or explained. There was no clear evidence that the implications had been discussed, no meaningful exploration of how the trust would operate in practice and no convincing evidence that the testator appreciated the effect of the change.

Importantly, the claim succeeded despite the will being drafted by an experienced solicitor and despite the absence of any finding of undue influence. The judge expressly rejected the allegation that the testator had been coerced. Instead, the case turned on a much narrower issue: whether the will accurately reflected his testamentary intentions. On the evidence, the court concluded that it did not.

This judgment serves as a reminder that knowledge and approval claims remain difficult to win. A claimant must identify circumstances that genuinely arouse the court’s suspicion and then demonstrate that the drafting process failed to ensure that the testator understood and approved the relevant provisions. Evidence of significant changes from original instructions, inadequate explanations, misunderstandings about legal concepts or poor attendance notes can all become highly relevant. However, the hurdle remains a substantial one, particularly where solicitors are involved. For anyone considering challenging a will on this basis, the key question is not whether the outcome appears unfair, but whether the evidence shows that the will failed to reflect the deceased’s true intentions.

[1] [2026] EWHC 2440 (Ch)