Ugolor and others v Ugolor and another [2026] EWHC 745 (Ch)
Background
Pamela Festous died on 21 March 2020 with a homemade will dated 21 March 2008 (2008 Will). The 1st Defendant was the main beneficiary of the 2008 Will and the Claimants, who were siblings of the 1st Defendant, challenged the 2008 will on a number of grounds: lack of knowledge and approval; lack of testamentary capacity; and undue influence. There was a court order appointing an independent administrator (further details can be found in our previous blog here). The 1st Defendant had been debarred from defending these proceedings as a result of significant and continuing non-compliance with interim orders. Since it was a probate claim, the court could not give a default judgment (Civil Procedure Rules Part 57.10) and/or find in favour of the Claimants automatically. A trial took place to determine the validity of the 2008 Will.
Decision
The court held that the 2008 Will was invalid on the ground of lack of knowledge and approval:-
- The 2008 Will had plainly been prepared by the 1st Defendant given the peculiarities of the drafting, such as his name being used throughout despite the fact that Pamela did not refer to him by his name ‘Cameron’ but ‘Glenroy’ or ‘Nduka’;
- The 2008 Will was composed of complex legal terminology which she was most unlikely to have used herself;
- It was suspicious that:-
- The 1st Defendant sought to obtain probate when he knew that a challenge to the 2008 Will was outstanding; and
- Pamela was disinheriting the children she had raised but was leaving a substantial legacy to those with whom she had no knowledge of for many decades;
- Pamela did suffer from delusions, but they did not go to testamentary capacity;
- Pamela had made an omission of a Nigerian property in the 2008 Will but merely forgetting about a particular asset is not, of itself, proof of lack of capacity, particularly where the asset was of no great value; and
- There was no sufficient evidence to show that there was actual coercion. If she had been compelled to disinherit her daughters against her will, Pamela would have mentioned this during subsequent nursing home visits by her daughters.
The court awarded indemnity costs against the 1st Defendant due to persistent non-compliance with court orders as mentioned above.
Comment
Although the court in this case did not order costs against the Claimants for failing to prove two grounds of challenging the 2008 Will, this approach undoubtedly led to increased costs and wasted time, which may attract judicial criticisms and adverse procedural consequences. It is therefore always sensible to be careful with pleading a case.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate
and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you have any questions concerning the above related subject, please contact Kate, Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us