A solicitor has been described by a judge as ‘reckless and quite possibly dishonest’ over the preparation of a will for his client’s £100m fortune.
Mr Justice Michael Green said wills specialist Daniel Curnock supported the claimant in Reeves v Drew & Ors by giving ‘untruthful evidence’ and said there could be ‘serious consequences’ for him as a result of his findings.
The 446-paragraph judgment followed a claim from Louise Reeves to uphold the 2014 will of her father, property dealer Kevin Reeves, following his death three years ago.
Louise Reeves received 80% of the deceased’s estate, with her half-sister Lisa Murray receiving the other 20%. Other family members opposed probate being granted and said the 2014 will had been the result of ‘undue influence’. A will prepared in 2012 had split the estate more equally across the deceased’s relatives and all parties accepted there was a ‘dramatic change’ between the two wills.
The judge said the manner in which Curnock prepared the 2014 will was ‘very strange’. Despite his client’s wealth, Curnock insisted that because Mr Reeves had negotiated a fixed fee of £140 plus VAT, he would not be able to provide a first class service. The court heard that Curnock compared the quality of service he provided as ‘akin to the quality of clothes at Primark’.
The judge said it was ‘extraordinary’ that the solicitor annotated with deletions and amendments the original signed and properly executed 2012 will while it was still valid, and that Curnock was at a loss to explain why he did that.
It was also noted by the judge that Curnock had an ‘annoying habit of buying time in the witness box’ by insisting on reading the whole of every document he was taken to, and he persistently tried to avoid answering the question by asking questions back to counsel or the court.
The judge added that Curnock ‘was a most unsatisfactory witness whose evidence cannot be tested by reference to his own attendance notes because those attendance notes are themselves under challenge’. It was further observed that there was ‘far more’ to the relationship between Louise Reeves and Curnock than either of them had said. The court heard there were a number of text messages sent between them in December 2013 and a witness to a meeting from that time said there was ‘familiarity’ between the two.
The judge said: ‘It is actually quite distressing to say that I cannot safely rely on the evidence from an officer of the court but I do not think he was giving truthful evidence about how he took instructions, prepared the 2014 will and the relationship between him and the claimant.’
He concluded that while the involvement of a solicitor would usually strengthen the presumption of validity of a will, in this case it was ‘quite the reverse’.
The judge ruled that the claimant had not proved that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will. The undisputed 2012 will was ruled to be valid.
