Blog
Keeping the peace at Christmas – top tips for shared parenting over the festive season
Lauren Evans
At the end of last year the High Court heard the case of Reeves v Drew & Others, which concerned a challenge to the validity of a will made by successful businessman Kevin Reeves, on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval and undue influence. Whilst there was a lot of public interest in the case at the time due to the characters involved, the judgment also provides a comprehensive summary of the legal principles relevant to claims advanced on these grounds.
Kevin Reeves, the deceased, was described as ‘an incredibly sharp, tough and successful businessman’ who had built a remarkable fortune of approximately £100 million during his lifetime. The deceased passed away unexpectedly on 3 February 2019 at the age of 71, resulting in a feud between his children and grandchildren over his estate. During the three week trial in November 2021 the court was asked to determine claims on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval and undue influence.
The Two Wills
The deceased made two wills, one in 2012 and one in 2014. According to the terms of the deceased's 2012 will, 80% of his residuary estate was to be divided among his three children Louise, Bill and Lisa in three equal parts. His two grandchildren were to receive the remaining 20% of the estate in equal parts. The deceased made a further will in 2014 and there was a stark difference between the terms of the 2012 and 2014 wills. Under the 2014 will the deceased left 80% of his residuary estate to his daughter Louise, and the remaining 20% to Lisa, completely excluding Bill and his two grandchildren as beneficiaries.
Louise issued a claim for the 2014 will to be upheld, however this was challenged by Bill who claimed that the deceased was unduly influenced by Louise and that their father did not know and approve the contents of the 2014 will.
The Issues
There were two issues which Mr Justice Michael Green needed to determine; (i) whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will; and (ii) whether the deceased executed the 2014 will as a result of undue influence, exercised by Louise.
The deceased’s literacy was a key issue in the proceedings and the judge considered the evidence from 49 live witnesses to conclude that the deceased was illiterate. This was crucial to the judge’s findings as it related to whether the deceased knew and approved of the contents of the 2014 will. The judge stated that “the Claimant grossly exaggerated the deceased's ability to read in her evidence” and that she would “have known that the deceased would not have been able to read the 2014 will by himself and she probably hoped that he would not try.”
The will making process was also thoroughly discussed in the judgment, and it was found that the claimant and the solicitor who drafted the will “sought to conceal the extent of their dealings together”. The judge highlighted that there were inconsistencies between attendance notes and that there was “no proof that the deceased read the draft 2014 will; nor is there any evidence that it was read to him.” Mr Justice Michael Green further criticised the solicitor involved in drafting the will, stating that “the preparation of the 2014 will was not merely incompetent; it was reckless and quite possibly dishonest.”
The Decision
Mr Justice Michael Green concluded that the Claimant had not proved that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014, despite being of sound mind and the will having been duly executed. The 2014 will was therefore found to be invalid. In the judge’s view, the ‘dramatic change to the deceased’s testamentary intentions, together with the deep involvement of the Claimant with the solicitor tasked with implementing that change in the Claimant’s favour are circumstances that do very much excite “the vigilance and suspicion of the court’”.
Unusually, the judge also found that even though “one might have thought that the involvement of a solicitor would strengthen the presumption of validity”, in this case it was “quite the reverse”.
The judge dismissed the claim that the deceased was unduly influenced by the Claimant to make the 2014 will. His findings on knowledge and approval precluded any finding that the 2014 will was procured by the exercise of undue influence. However the judge did go on to set out in his judgment the legal test for undue influence and confirmed that “the person alleging undue influence essentially has to show that the will in question was not procured by the exercise of the testator’s own free will which has been overborne by external forces”.
In this case, the judge ruled that it was “not enough to show that the Claimant tried to persuade the deceased to favour her in his will”. He concluded that there was “no real evidence of undue influence being exercised in relation to the 2014 will” and stated that rather than “applying pressure on the deceased to make a will in her favour, the Claimant pulled the wool over his eyes so that he did not know that his will had so radically changed from his earlier one.”
In cases of this nature the court will look at the unique facts and circumstances of the case it is considering. This case is a reminder that all of the relevant information will be scrutinised and that often the facts will overlap, allowing claimants to challenge a will on several grounds in the alternative. Whilst the court will expect to be presented with compelling and persuasive evidence before it will consider setting aside a will, this decision shows that where that evidence exists the court is willing to overturn a will where it is not established that the testator had the requisite knowledge and approval, even in some cases where the will has been prepared by a solicitor.
Further information
Should you have any questions about the issues covered in this blog, please contact Kate Salter in our Dispute Resolution team.
About the author
Kate Salter is a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution team with a wide range of litigation experience, and with particular expertise in Wills, Trusts and Inheritance Disputes.
Latest blogs & news
2025 in review: Under construction - Tax investigations
In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.
Under construction: Tax investigations
In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.
No more deemed fulfilment: The Supreme Court decision in King Crude Carriers SA v Ridgebury November LLC
The recent Supreme Court judgment in King Crude Carriers SA and others v Ridgebury November LLC marks a significant development in English contract law.
The decision arose from an appeal against an arbitration award and addresses the fundamental question of whether the so called “deemed fulfilment” principle established by the 1881 Scottish Appeal case of Mackay v Dick exists in English Law.
2025 in Review: Civil Fraud
In 2025, two High Court rulings, Apollo XI Ltd v Nexedge Markets Ltd and J&J Snack Foods Corp & ICEE Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd highlighted the strict nature of the duty of full and frank disclosure in without notice applications.
In both cases, the court discharged freezing injunctions after finding that the applicants had failed to meet the requisite standard of candour and fair presentation. These decisions serve as a clear reminder that when seeking urgent relief without notifying the other party, applicants must present all material facts - including those that may undermine their case, and ensure the court receives a balanced and accurate account.
“But you gave it to me” – Is there a way to ungive a gift?
We sometimes receive enquiries from people asking whether it is possible to challenge a gift which has been made previously.
Of course, giving someone a ‘lifetime gift’ (i.e. where money or assets are given away during a person’s lifetime) can be an efficient estate planning mechanism but, may be subject to challenge if the donor lacked the capacity to make an informed choice or, has been unduly influenced into making a gift.
We usually see this within the scope of a gift of money or a property, but similar principals apply to collectables and other chattels.
Victims of Fraud Series Part 4: Tracing issues in crypto assets cases
Claims involving digital assets (including crypto assets) have become relatively common in the English Courts over the last five years and, as a result, the main areas of disagreement between the parties to those disputes are starting to emerge. A major theme is the methodology that should be applied to the tracing and following of digital assets.
It was all a sham
Assets are typically placed in a trust for legitimate purposes, such as safeguarding wealth for future generations. However, arguments that a trust is in fact a “sham” created to hide the true ownership of assets often arise in the context of divorce litigation, bankruptcy/insolvency where a creditor seeks to argue that a trust is a pretence seeking to shield assets from creditors, or in estate disputes, where beneficiaries look to bring assets of the deceased back into an estate.
Victims of Fraud Series Part 3: “What can I do if the fraudster has disappeared?” - Persons Unknown Injunctions
Where the identity of a person or group of people responsible for a fraud is not known, the courts have recognised that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow a claimant to issue proceedings and obtain an injunction (both interim and final) against such individuals. These injunctions are referred to as “persons unknown injunctions” and they have become increasingly prominent in recent years.
Landmark High Court ruling confirms availability of civil remedies for criminally sanctioned Companies Act breaches
Kingsley Napley is pleased to have acted for the successful claimants in proceedings before the High Court. The decision addresses a long-standing uncertainty in company law: if a provision of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 06”) carries a criminal penalty for breach, does that mean no civil remedy is available? The court’s ruling sheds light on how such provisions should be understood and what consequences companies and directors may face when compliance falls short.
Victims of Fraud Series Part 2: Using information orders to identify a fraudster and trace assets
One of the most alarming aspects of falling victim to fraud is knowing where to start. It is very common for a victim to know almost nothing about what has happened, except for the fact that they have been scammed and the assets have gone. However, there are options available even if you don’t know the identity of the fraudster and the assets have, apparently, disappeared.
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”).
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print