High Court Rules Against Multi-Millionaires 2014 Will For Lack Of Knowledge & Consent

Reeves v Drew [2022] EwoWHC 153 (Ch)

Case background

Kevin Patrick Frain (aka Kevin Patrick Reeves) started out with nothing and during the course of his lifetime, amassed a fortune of around £100 million through ruthless, tough and acute business acumen. The Deceased was given up by his biological mother and his foster mother, who had Irish traveller origins, died when he was 10. The Defendants said that as a result, he never learned to read or write.

The Deceased left behind two Daughters and one Son. He also left a Will, signed in 2014, leaving 80% of his estate to one of his Daughters (the Claimant), along with a Rolls Royce Phantom and a property. The remaining 20% and another property would go to his other Daughter. The Claimant wanted the Court to uphold the 2014 Will where she stood to inherit around £80 million as the last Will and Testament of her late father.

The deceased’s son disputed the validity of the 2014 Will and, amongst other things, claimed that his late Father did not understand or approve of the contents of the document. In denouncing the 2014 Will, the last Will of the Deceased would be one he prepared in 2012; where he left 80% to be split by his three Children equally and 20% to two of his Grandchildren.

The Court acknowledged that in England and Wales, testators have complete testamentary freedom and can make a Will without justifying their decisions by reference to any notions of fairness, reasonableness, or morality. However, the Court found it very strange that the solicitor’s notes did not provide any explanation for the dramatic change between the provisions in the two Wills.

The High Court’s proceedings

Over the course of a lengthy three-week trial, the Judge heard and saw copious amounts of evidence from 49 witnesses revealing how complicated the family dynamic was, which included the Claimant solidifying her position as a director of the Deceased’s business three days after his death, domestic abuse, family rifts and lying under oath. The Judge noted that the Claimant had “inherited from her father a similar ruthless, tough streak and that she would not stop at anything to get what she wanted”.

The Judge considered evidence from the solicitor who prepared the Will but found that his evidence was untruthful and unreliable with a comment that the attendance notes did not “accurately record the deceased’s instructions”. Emails also surfaced at disclosure showing that the Claimant and the solicitor had met up long before his witness statement stated, seeking to ‘conceal the extent of their dealings together and the involvement of the claimant in the Will-making process’. The solicitor said that he only charged £140 plus VAT for the Will and so the quality of service that he provided was ‘akin to the quality of clothes at Primark’.

The Court found that the Deceased’s Daughter, greatly exaggerated her late father’s reading skills at the time of making the 2014 Will and the Deceased may have been almost totally illiterate and unlikely to be able to read the 2014 Will when it was prepared. The Claimant failed to prove her late Father understood his Will or that he approved it. As such, the Court ordered the 2014 Will to be invalid. The previous and undisputed Will dated 2012 was accepted by the Court as the Deceased’s last Will and Testament.