Priti Patel v Nicholas O'Sullivan & Ors

There are two claims before me. One, issued in July 2024, concerns the validity of the will dated 20 July 2020 of Kantaben Patel, who passed away in December of that year. aged 73. It is disputed by her daughter, Priti Patel, on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval and of the undue influence exerted by her son Sanjay Patel and her sister-in-law Vimlaben Patel. The seek to uphold the July will. It was professionally drawn by a solicitor, Nicholas O’Sullivan, who is also the named executor. He takes a neutral stance on its validity, although he gave written and oral evidence before me as to the circumstances of its drafting and execution. He also seeks, in an earlier claim issued in February 2024, a declaration under Part 64 of the CPR as to a loan of £35,000 which Vimlaben Patel says she loaned to her sister-in-law in two tranches in 2018 and 2019 for the benefit of Priti Patel, which has not been repaid. The two claims have been consolidated.

Priti Patel’s particulars of claim dated July 2024 sets out particulars of the alleged want of knowledge and approval and of undue influence in great detail. It has the appearance of some professional input, although no professional representatives are identified in it. She had previously filed a witness statement dated May 2024 which dealt primarily with the Part 64 claim in which she denied such a loan or alternatively said that it has been repaid. She also raised suspicions about the July 2020 will which she said was still being investigated.

The procedural history of the claims is complex and involves about 20 interim orders. I deal here with this history only so far as is necessary for present purposes. By orders in November 2024, DJ Bayoumi found on the basis of psychiatric evidence that Priti Patel lacked capacity in respect of these claims and appointed Safina Bibi as litigation friend, an appointment which she has maintained, apart from a short hiatus, up to and during the hearing. Priti Patel did not attend. By an order in December 2025 His Honour Judge Keyser KC ordered that her particulars of claim and her witness statement could be relied upon as hearsay evidence.

Nicholas O’Sullivan was represented by counsel, Ms Parker, and was called to give evidence. Sanjay Patel represented himself and gave evidence. He called three witnesses to give oral evidence: Harilal Patel is the husband of Vimlaben Patel; Shardaben Patel, who is the elder sister of Kantaben Patel; and Sudhaben Bhatt who was the latter’s longstanding and close friend. Her written statement was in the form of a reference for Sanjay Patel and not CPR compliant but nothing turns on that. Shardaben Patel gave her evidence in the first language of the Patel family, Gujarati, which was translated by Anishah Nathalia via video link. Vimlaben Patel also represented herself and called her nephew Dipak Patel, to give oral evidence by video link from the USA. None of the other defendants have defended the proceedings although some of the them have provided witness statements which were in the hearing bundle, as well as statements from other family members. These were not referred to in any detail during the hearing. At the end of evidence, each of the defendants made oral closing submissions. Ms Bibi submitted hers in writing a few days later. I have considered all of the points in submissions and put in cross-examination, although I do not refer to every one in this judgment.

Sanjay Patel also produced in evidence video recording taken on his phone of him speaking to his mother on 25 July 2020, some four days before the July 2020 will was executed, and again on 2 August 2020, a couple of days after. They spoke mostly in Gujarati, but with some English. These were referred to in his witness statement in April 2025 and links provided to the other parties to view the recordings. He also provided his English translations, which Ms Nathalia was asked on the first day of the hearing to check overnight and she confirmed them to be correct.

Vimlaben Patel also took two short video recordings when she and another sister in law, Jaswantiben Patel, drove Kantaben Patel to and from Nicholas O’Sullican’s officer to make the July 2020 will. The recordings were made on the return journey and were referred to in Vimlaben Patel’s witness statement in August 2024 with English translations of what was said in Gujarati. Again Ms Nathalia confirmed the translations, after which no issue was taken at the hearing about them. I am very grateful to Ms Nathalia for her assistance. I have viewed each of these four recordings and followed them with the assistance of the translations.

It his convenient to deal with the validity of the July 2020 will first. Priti Patel in her particulars of claim relies on several reasons why she says her mother did not know and approve of the contents of the July will. It is noteworthy that there is no allegation that her mother lacked testamentary capacity at that time. That is unsurprising given that she seeks to uphold a will which her mother made only some four weeks before hand, on June 2020, which was more favourable to her. It is not alleged that her mother’s mental capacity changed significantly in the meantime.

There are three main themes to these particulars. The first is that her mother in March 2020 was diagnosed with terminal cancer which spread to her spine and her bones and led to her death in December 2020. This diagnosis is not in dispute, nor that she was on strong painkillers at the time of the wills. What is in dispute is the extent of physical disability and pain. Her daughter alleges that this meant that at the time of the July 2020 will, her mother was very unwell physically and mentally with fatigue and was vulnerable. The defendants accept that there was some physical discomfort, but say that she was able to walk unaccompanied and unaided from the car to Nicholas O’ Sullivan’s office, some 20 meters or so, around the office and back again. They say she was mentally alert.

The second main theme is that her mother was taken from the home which they both shared in Cardiff to the home of Jaswantiben Patel in Cowbridge, some 12 miles away, from the 25 to 30 July 2020. She is widow of the mother’s younger brother. These facts are not in dispute. However, it is alleged that her mother was then kept there against her will, for the purposes of getting her to change her will. That is denied. The case for Sanjay and Vimladen Patel is that she was taken there following her allegations that her daughter was preventing her from leaving her home, or from having visitors or from using her mobile phone of the landline. She also alleged that her daughter had pressurised her into making the June 2020 will and that she wanted to make a new will to set out her real wishes.

The validity of the June 2020 will is not in issue in these proceedings, so there is a limit to which the circumstances surrounding its making will be relevant to the validity of the later will. However, they have some relevance in that regard in that they are relied upon by the defendants to explain why that later will was made so soon after the June 2020 will.

The third theme is that the July 2020 will set out clauses which were too complex for her to understand, given that English was her second language. Particular reference is made to clause 3, which contained provisions in relation to what was said to be the outstanding loan of £35,000 payable by her daughter and what would happen in respect of the home if this were not paid. The other clause referred to is clause 7, which sets out what is to happen to the estate if there were a challenge to the validity of the will. Again this is disputed. Nicholas O’Sullivan says that he took instructions from her alone for over an hour, completing a proforma questionnaire while doing so. He had previously met her in 2019 to deal with the administration of the estate of her husband who died in June 2019. After she had given instructions for the July 2020 will, he suggested she come back later that day to allow him to draft the will for her to sign, which she did. He then went through the draft with her before she signed. He was satisfied that she knew and approved of its contents. All of this was conducted in English. Her competency in English was also attested to by the other defendants and witnesses. For example, Sanjay Patel said that his mother had undertaken factory work with English speaking colleagues for over 30 years.

The allegations of under influence are levelled at Sanjay and Vimlaben Patel on the basis that both had the opportunity and motive to coerce a change of will. The latter did not benefit from the June 2020 will at all but the later will made provisions for £35,000 to be repaid to her. Sanjay Patel was the residuary beneficiary under both wills, but in the earlier one his mother’s home, which was by far the biggest asset in the estate, was left to his sister absolutely and she was appointed executrix. It is not in dispute that he picked his mother up from her home on 25 July 2020 and drove her to the home of his aunt in Cowbridge. The recording made by him that day shows him putting various matters to his mother about her wishes, some of which were leading in nature, with her agreeing in a few words. He refers to a written document dated 4 July 2020 bearing her signature.

His sister also alleges that whilst their mother was in Cowbridge she received a phonecall which accidentally allowed her to listen to a conversation involving their mother. She says that she heard family members shouting at their mother and “poisoning” her against her daughter.

Before I deal with the disputed issues in more detail, I will set out more of the background. The Patel family settled in Cardiff in the 1970s, and all members of the family who gave oral evidence are based there, except for Sanjay Patel who moved to Oxfordshire some years ago. He and his sister are the only children of their parents and were brought up in the family home in De Burgh Street, which now is the main asset of their mother’s estate. remained since. Kantaben Patel made two wills in 2019. The first in May 2019 left her estate to her husband but if he should die before her then equally between her children and her only grandchild Yash Patel. The second was made in September 2019 after the death of her husband and left her estate between her children equally.

The cancer diagnosis came in March the following year, about the same time as the first lockdown due to Covid came into force in Wales. Thereafter family and friends continued to visit but were not allowed indoors. For example, Sudhaben Bhatt said she visited at this time and spoke to her through the window.

Vimlaben Patel said that about this time, her sister in law in a phone conversation told her that her daughter wanted the home left to her, and she told her sister in law that she thought that was the right thing to do as that was her daughter’s home and Sanjay Patel had his own home.

There is not a great deal of evidence as to how the June 2020 will came about. In the hearing bundle there is a letter dated from Nigel Arrighi. In it, he says that he is a computer engineer who carried out some work for Priti Patel and visited the home on several occasions to carry out technical work, and so he met her mother. He says that Priti Patel asked him to draw up a will for her mother because of the difficulty of getting a solicitor to attend the home due to lockdown restrictions. He says that he had several conversations with her mother, and was satisfied that she knew and understood what she wanted to do. The will was signed and witnessed at home.

Whilst in a hospice in Penarth, on 4 July 2020, his mother signed a document addressed “to whom it may concern.” It said that her daughter had become controlling and had pressurised her to sign the will gifting the home to her. She said that she only did this to keep her daughter happy, but she was only willing for her daughter to have the home on certain conditions, including paying back the loan of £35,000 and ceasing the controlling behaviour. She also says that her daughter had persuaded her to appoint her as attorney but that she wanted to revoke that. The document is witnessed by a staff nurse there.

How that document came about was not explored in evidence. Sanjay Patel said that his mother told him about the June 2020 will a week or so afterwards. He accepts that he visited his mother in the hospice. In the subsequent recording which he made on 25 July 2020 he referred to this document and said to his mother that “ a few weeks ago you told me about the statement.” He then put the contents to her point by point to see if it was true and she confirmed the points. He accepts that he drove to Cardiff and picked up his mother from her home to take her to her sister in law’s home in Cowbridge, as he says that it was his mother wanted. He says he made the recording on 25 July 2020 to make sure what his mother wanted to do about the will. He accepts that he paid for that will to be drawn up. Vilmaben Patel accepts that she and her sister in law drove his mother to the offices of Nicholas O’Sullivan in Barry and waited outside whilst instructions were given and the will executed and then drove her back again.

The applicable legal principles were helpfully set out in Ms Parker’s skeleton argument and are well established. It is for those propounding the July 2020 will to prove that Kantaben Patel knew and approved of the contents of that will.

There is a presumption that where a will has been duly executed by a testator with capacity the testator knew and approved the contents of the will. However, such a presumption is not conclusive. Where there are suspicious circumstances those propounding the will must those suspicions and prove such knowledge and approval. Where a will is prepared by an experienced solicitor and executed following the taking of instructions in a professional setting the presumption is a strong presumption one Each case, however, turns on its own facts.

In Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430, Lord Nueberger, then MR, said this at [15]

At [22], Lord Neuberger continued:

Lloyd LJ in that case at [71] observed that the question is whether the testator understood what was in the will when they signed it and what is effect would be.

In relation to undue influence, the burden of proving such influence lies upon the person asserting it. It means coercion i.e. the testator’s will must have been overborne so that the will does not reflect their true intentions. Mere persuasion, influence or appeals to affection are not sufficient. The facts must be inconsistent with any other explanation. In Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch) at [47] Lewison J, as the then was, summarised the principles as follows:

I turn to consider first the issue of knowledge and approval. Nicholas O’Sullivan gave his evidence in a considered and measured way. Ms Bibi pointed to inconsistencies in his evidence, as well as in the evidence of the other defendants and their witnesses. On the whole, in my judgment, these were no more than may be expected when witnesses are trying to recall the detail of what happened several years before. I accept his evidence as to the process of the making and execution of the July 2020, and that he read it over to her before she signed and that she appeared to understand it.

I also accept his evidence that although it was clear at the time that his client was in some pain, the way he put it was that she “grimaced” now and then in a little pain, this was not such as to impact upon her ability to know and approve of the contents. This evidence has the support of the family members and friends who gave evidence before me. In particular, I accept the evidence of Vimlaben Patel that her sister-in-law walked unaided and unaccompanied some 20 meters from the car to the office and back again and that she was able to walk and talk. I also accept the evidence of Sanjay Patel that his mother’s pain was most evident on waking in the morning and at various stages of the day but this was managed with medication. Generally, she was walking and talking “fine.”

Included in the trial bundle is a letter from her oncologist dated 2 May 2024 which is unsigned but stated to be electronically approved by his secretary. It states that in his opinion from March to July 2020 she would have been “mentally unfit” to sign any legal documents. Ms Bibi made particular reference to this as part of the case against the validity of the July 2020 will, although no permission for expert evidence has been given. However, the letter is not focused solely at that time, but from March 2020 onwards. To that extent, the opinion is inconsistent with the case of any party and with the evidence adduced by them. In my judgment she did have capacity to sign the July 2020 will.

I also accept the evidence of Nicholas O’Sullivan and Sanjay Patel that his mother had sufficient command of the English language as to understand its contents.

In my judgment this is not a case where reliance should be placed on the presumption set out above. That is because the July 2020 will was made so soon after the June 2020 will. The latter is logical on the face of it given that the mother’s home was also the home of her daughter and that her son had his own property. What it does not do is ake mention of a £35,000 loan. Nicholas O’Sullivan said that he was given a copy of the June 2020 will when taking instructions for the July 2020 will and he asked why she wanted to change her will so soon. He said that she replied that her daughter had told her to make the earlier will and that it didn’t reflect her wishes. This was recorded in his attendance note which he wrote up soon afterwards. This evidence is consistent with that of Sanjay and Vimlaben Patel and I accept the evidence of each in this regard.

The evidence of the family that after March 2020 Priti Patel confined her mother to home, apart from an occasional visit to the temple and the community centre there, coincides with the cancer diagnosis and with the first lockdown. In my judgment, therefore there may be innocent explanations for this. Of more concern is their evidence that she took her mother’s mobile phone from her and restricted her access to the landline.

Sudhaben Bhatt said that she used to phone most days. She avoided 7pm as she knew that was when Sanjay Patel would have phone conversations with his mother. However, after March 2020 that changed and the phone would not be picked up. When she did eventually manage to make contact Kantaben Patel told her that her daughter had taken her phone away. Harilal Patel said that at this time he could not make phone contact. He further said that on 13 June 2020 Sanjay Patel called him and said that he had contacted the police because he could not get through to his mother, and that they attended her at home. He was asked to go there. He rushed there and the police told him that the phone had been returned and that Priti Patel had agreed not to put further restrictions on her mother. It is not in dispute that no further safeguarding issues were thought to be necessary and that mother and daughter then remained in the home together.

Dipak Patel says that the latter phoned him on 28 July 2020 and said that her daughter had forced her to sign a lasting power of attorney and that she wanted to revoke it and appoint him and Harilal Patel as attorneys, which is what happened. This is consistent with what was said in the document signed on 4 July 2020. He also said that she mentioned that her daughter had taken her phone away. Ms Bibi pointed to linguistic similarities between his witness statement and that of his uncle Harilal Patel, although he denied any discussion with his uncle about the wording. I take that into account, but in my judgment his oral evidence was given in a clear and straightforward way and I accept all this evidence.

In my judgment it is likely that after her mother’s diagnosis of terminal cancer, Priti Patel became concerned about her position in the home and the risk of it being sold if this were shared with her brother, as provided in the September 2019 will. It is also likely that she persuaded her mother to make the June 2020 will, which did not reflect the latter’s true wishes, and that is the reason why she wanted to make another will. It is likely that her daughter restricted her mother’s phone calls for fear that family members may persuade her to change it.

Clause 3 of the July 2020 will provides as follows:

Clause 7 of the will provides:

No one challenged the validity of such a clause as clause 7, but I sought reassurance about the legal position and obtained this when Ms Parker referred me to Nathan v Leonard [2002] EWHC 1701 (Ch).

The attendance note also dealt with how clauses 3 and 7 were explained, as follows, in which initials are used;

I accept that that is how the clauses were explained. Although the clauses themselves are in legal language, in my judgment this was sufficient to explain the effect of the clauses.

There were two further minor points taken by Ms Bibi. The first is that in the questionnaire, Nicholas O’Sullivan ticked the “burial” box rather than the “cremation” box whereas the latter is customary in Hindu tradition, something he was unaware of at the time. However, in the following section dealing in more detail with funeral arrangements, “Hindu ceremony” is recorded. The second is that her daughter’s date of birth is recorded incorrectly, with the year given as 1978 instead of 1970. In my view neither of these points are sufficient to cast significant doubt on knowledge and approval.

Taking all this evidence into account, I have come to the clear conclusion that Kantaben Patel did know and approve of the contents of the July 2020 will. I am comforted in this conclusion by the video recordings of her. Although these are short, and although the first one shows her responding to her son’s questions, the other three show her speaking fluently and unprompted (at least whilst the recording lasted) and alert. In the recordings made in the car on the way to and from the making of the will, she says this in Gujarati, referring to her daughter by the family nickname:

As for undue influence, I accept that Sanjay and Vimlaben Patel each had the motive and the opportunity to force his mother to change her will. My conclusions above about knowledge and approval have some relevance under this head too. Ms Bibi clearly put to each of them in cross-examination that this is what they did, but each in measured terms denied that they did so. They also denied keeping her against her will at the Cowbridge property. This denial had support from Shardaben Patel, who was there at the time. Even if they sought to persuade her to do so, and the recording on 25 July 2020 may be seen in those terms, I am satisfied that this did not cross the line into coercion. In my judgment it is more likely that what they were doing was ensuring that her real wishes were put into effect.

In my judgment the July 2020 will is a valid will.

That leaves the issue of the loan. Vimlaben Patel said that her bank accounts show the payment of £25,000 in 2018 and £10,000 in 2019 and she was not pressed further on that. Each payment is recorded in a contemporaneous letter, drafted by herself and signed on their face by her, her husband and Kantaben Patel. It was put to her in cross-examination that the latter’s signature was not genuine. She calmly but firmly maintained that it was. It is also clear that her signature differed significantly from one letter to another. She explained that by saying her natural signature was not clear enough for official purposes, so it altered. I accept her evidence. I accept that the 2018 and 2019 letter were signed by her, by her husband and by Kantaben Patel.

She accepts that she received £17,750 from Kantaben Patel but denied that that was to repay part of the loan. She said that the latter wanted to buy her grandson, and only grandchild, Yash Patel, a car for his 21st birthday and wanted to give him £15,000 for that purpose. She said that she sent a cheque in this amount to him on his birthday but he did not want to cash it until this dispute was resolved. She said that Kantaben Patel asked her to distribute the remainder after her death as she saw fit. She sets out in her witness statement the details of how this has been distributed, including some to Priti Patel. There is £456 left, which she has agreed with Sanjay Patel should be used to buy a plaque commemorating the voluntary work which Kantaben Patel undertook at the temple’s community centre. I accept that evidence.

In my judgment the £35,000 is outstanding. This helps to explain why Kantaben Patel wanted to make a new will, as the June 2020 makes no mention of this loan,

Sanjay and Vimlaben Patel are each critical of Nicholas O’Sullivan for not giving her £35,000 which he has received from Priti Patel and for the amount of fees which he has charged. The former was part of an arrangement which he came to when the mortgagee of the home was threatening possession proceedings. There were no sufficient monies in the estate to redeem the mortgage or the pay monthly repayments. He was concerned that if these succeeded, the home might be sold on a forced sale basis and costs would be incurred. Priti Patel was disputing that the loan had been made or that there were amounts outstanding. Her representatives at the time proposed that she should redeem the mortgage and pay £35,000 to him to be held until the dispute about it was resolved. He reluctantly agreed. It is held in a client account pending resolution of the dispute about the loan. He said he took legal advice as to whether he should side with one or the other parties to this dispute and the advice was to the effect that if he did so he put himself at risk of being sued. I accept that evidence. In my judgment it was reasonable for him to enter into this arrangement which has obliged him to hold the £35,000 until the dispute is resolved.

In view of that ongoing dispute and the dispute about the validity of the July 2020 in my judgment, his incurring of ongoing fees is not surprising but is reasonable.

In conclusion, the July 2020 will is valid. £35,000 remains outstanding from the estate to Vimlaben Patel.

I would be grateful if the parties would file a draft order agreed as far as possible, together with written submissions on any consequential matters which cannot be agreed, within 14 days of handing down of this judgment. Any such matters will then be determined on the basis of the written submissions.