Blog
Travelex liquidation: Court appoints additional conflict liquidators
Daniel Sejas
There continues to be a rise in will validity challenges involving allegations that an individual was unduly influenced to change the terms of their will. Such cases often involve the elderly or vulnerable, who may be more susceptible to influence, or someone abusing a position of trust to coerce an individual to write a will on terms that they otherwise would not have. This generally results in the person who exerted the influence (or someone close to them) benefitting significantly under the terms of the will.
Evidence of undue influence can be difficult to find, because it invariably happens behind closed doors, involves someone close to the person making a will, and the primary witness is deceased. This can make it difficult to prove that undue influence has occurred, particularly because, given the serious nature of the allegation, there is a high threshold in these types of claims. The party claiming undue influence must demonstrate that the influencing party coerced the person making the will into doing so, thereby overriding their own free will or volition. Persuasion is not enough.
There have been a number of recent cases involving allegations of undue influence, including the Court of Appeal case of Rea v Rea [2024].
Rea v Rea involved a will validity challenge based on allegations that a daughter had coerced her late mother into making a will that did not reflect her true testamentary intentions. The will, which left most of the mother’s estate - including the family home - to the daughter in question, had replaced one made 30 years earlier (which divided the estate equally between all of the testator’s children, the daughter and three sons).
At first instance, the High Court Judge determined that the three sons had established undue influence on the part of the daughter, taking into account: the frailty and vulnerability of the mother at the time the will was made; that the mother was dependant on the daughter; that the new will was made shortly after the sons stopped helping with her care; that the daughter had arranged the solicitor’s appointment (to make the will) and was present throughout a meeting; that there were serious concerns about the mother’s reasons for leaving her home to the daughter; and that no one was aware of the new will until the mother died.
However, the Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not support a finding of undue influence. The Court found that undue influence was no more likely than an alternative hypothesis, for example, that the mother had decided to make a new will (and the fact that the daughter may have encouraged her to do so was not a bar to this).
These cases are incredibly fact specific and evidence is crucial, as can be seen in the example of Rea v Rea.
As a result of the difficulty of bringing successful claims based on undue influence, concerns have been raised that the current law does not adequately protect vulnerable people from financial abuse. On 16 May 2025, the Law Commission published recommendations to reform the law relating to wills; this included a recommendation that it “should” be possible for the court to “infer” that a will (or any disposition in it) was brought about by undue influence where there is “evidence which provides reasonable grounds to suspect it”. This is not law yet; however, if the recommendation is taken forward, the inference may arise where there is evidence which provides reasonable ground to suspect undue influence, considering in particular, any relationship of influence between the person and the testator, their conduct in respect of making the will, the circumstances in which the will is made, and any other relevant factors.
If the law is changed, evidence will be required in order for an inference of undue influence to arise, so it will still be important for the merits of any claim to be assessed and evidence collated at an early stage when considering advancing a claim on this basis.
Further information
If you have any questions, please contact Cally Brosnan in our Dispute Resolution team.
About the author
Cally is an Associate who specialises in trust, estate and Court of Protection disputes. Her experience in the field of estate disputes includes challenges to the validity of wills (including claims based on a lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, fraud, forgery and undue influence), and claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Latest blogs & news
Travelex liquidation: Court appoints additional conflict liquidators
In a judgment handed down today, the Court agreed to appoint two additional conflict liquidators from Grant Thornton in the Travelex liquidation following an application made by Kingsley Napley’s client Rawbank S.A. (“Rawbank”).
Rawbank is the largest bank in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) and is an unsecured creditor of Travelex Bank Notes Ltd (“Travelex”) (part of the Travelex group of companies) for over £48m.
Victims of Fraud Series Part 1: Why Acting Fast Matters
In cases of fraud, the first 24 to 48 hours can determine whether stolen assets are recoverable or not. Fraudsters are often sophisticated, moving funds through multiple accounts, jurisdictions, or even converting them into cryptocurrency within hours. It is important to have a plan so that you understand the immediate steps you would take in the event of fraud, as delay can mean that your assets are dissipated and recovery becomes difficult.
Removal of trustees – factors a court will consider
We are seeing an increase in enquiries from both beneficiaries of trusts seeking the removal of trustees, and from trustees facing allegations that they have not complied with their duties. Sometimes it is clear that a matter has not been dealt with appropriately by a trustee, but on other occasions this stems from a general breakdown of the relationship between the parties.
The International Data Insights Report: Trends in international arbitration
Two recent publications, the Law Society’s International Data Insights Report 2025 and Queen Mary University’s (“QMU”) International Arbitration Survey, analyse statistics concerning international arbitration and reaffirm London’s leading role in global dispute resolution.
Practical tips for trustees dealing with breach of trust allegations
Being a trustee carries significant responsibilities and often involves managing high value assets and making complex decisions in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. While trustees generally strive to act with care and integrity, allegations of breach of trust can arise. Whilst such allegations can be stressful and complex, how trustees manage the trust and how they respond to allegations is crucial to maintaining trust, protecting the trust’s assets, and avoiding potential contentious proceedings.
The tips below should generally be adopted through the life of the trust and may avoid disputes arising in the first place.
Civil Fraud Case Update: Q3 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of July - September 2025.
UAE agrees to share crypto information with international tax authorities
The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has joined in global efforts to improve transparency and compliance in the crypto sector by signing the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). The framework is expected to be rolled out in UAE in 2027, with the first automatic exchanges of information with other tax authorities such as HMRC taking place in 2028.
HMRC Covid scheme amnesty: action by 31 December 2025
The COVID pandemic was a difficult time for businesses, and many legitimately relied on financial support provided through government schemes to help them to survive and retain employees. However, it is estimated by HMRC that circa £10billion was also lost as a result of incorrect applications and outright fraud.
‘No win, no fee’ - are clients being hoodwinked?
At a time when a national broadcaster feels obliged to unpick (for the lawyer in us: alleged) misleading information from the leader of the free world, I almost choked on my breakfast when reading that we should also be concerned that some of us lawyers may be misleading the public too: 'No win, no fee' under fire: SRA vows to stop law firms hoodwinking consumers | Law Gazette Why now is a mystery; the term has been a feature of daytime TV advertising for decades!
Crypto reporting is changing: what this means for you - and HMRC
As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, two major frameworks are set to reshape how crypto-assets are reported: the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) and the European Union’s Directive on Administration Cooperation in taxation (“DAC8”).
Supreme Court clarifies VAT group rules in Prudential v HMRC
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
The headlines this week around former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are a reminder of the importance of taking the right advice from appropriate professionals and the potential consequences when such advice is called into question.
Civil Fraud case update Q2 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of April - June 2025.
Oral evidence series Part 6: Is an honest recollection of events truly evidence?
Judicial commentary shows that judges are exceedingly aware of the unreliability of witnesses’ memory when considering evidence at trial. While judges may take differing views as to the reliance that ought to be placed on oral evidence as compared to contemporaneous documents, procedural safeguards are now in place to help strengthen the reliability of witness evidence, in CPR Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts (“PD 57AC”).
Privilege update: Privy Council confirms the shareholder principle no longer applies in England & Wales
We have previously written about the potential death of the shareholder principle in our previous blogs. The recent Privy Council decision in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 confirms what we suspected; the shareholder principle no longer exists in England & Wales.
Oral Evidence Series Part 5: How Does Oral Evidence Differ in Arbitration Proceedings compared to Court?
We all know that arbitration and litigation are governed by different rules which dictate the way disputes are dealt with and the way that hearings proceed. One perhaps surprising difference, however, is the approach to oral evidence.
Oral evidence part 4: Issues with expert evidence
Issues with expert evidence can have a profound impact on the credibility of a party’s case, and consequently the likelihood or not of a party succeeding at trial. In this article we discuss some recent case law which highlights the need for parties to carefully comply with their procedural obligations regarding expert evidence, namely Part 35 of the CPR (“Part 35”) and the accompanying Practice Direction, to avoid such risks.
Oral evidence part 3: What is the role of a liquidator in giving evidence?
One of the key duties of a liquidator is to investigate the affairs of the insolvent company to determine whether its demise resulted from the acts (or omissions) of its directors or third parties against whom claims may be brought to obtain redress for losses suffered by the Company. This article focuses on claims initiated by the liquidator themselves, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of the company, and considers the weight that will be given to the liquidator’s evidence.
Oral evidence part 2: What if a witness doesn’t turn up to court?
Where a party wishes to rely on a witness statement at trial, Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 32.5 provides that they must call the witness to give oral evidence unless the court orders otherwise, or notice is provided of the intention to rely on the statement as hearsay evidence.
One of the issues that may arise during litigation is a witness failing to turn up at court to give evidence.
Oral evidence part 1: Giving evidence abroad in the First-tier Tax Tribunal
In an ideal world, witnesses providing evidence in First-tier Tax Tribunal proceedings would do so in person at a hearing. It is often easier to build a rapport with the Judge in person, you avoid technical issues, and however informal the Tax Tribunal is in comparison to the civil courts, there is something to be said about looking into the whites of a witness’s eyes during a cross examination.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print