Stephenson v Daley: Knowledge and approval upheld despite long delay in probate challenge

The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the validity of a will on grounds of want of knowledge and approval, finding that a deceased's decision to leave her entire estate to her long-term partner rather than her two sons was both rational and informed, notwithstanding an unexplained delay of over seven years before proceedings were issued.

In Stephenson v Daley [2026] EWHC 53 (Ch), His Honour Judge Cadwallader sitting as a High Court judge considered a claim to propound the will of Elaine Carol Reid, who died in October 2016 aged 62. The will, executed just months before her death from terminal cancer, left her entire estate—including the property in which she lived—to her partner Malcolm Roocroft, with whom she had cohabited since 1984. The property would pass to her two sons only if Malcolm predeceased her.

The defendants, Mrs Reid's sons, initially challenged the will on multiple grounds including capacity and coercive control, but by trial had narrowed their case to a single issue: that their mother did not know and approve of the will's contents. They accepted she had capacity, that the will was properly executed by a solicitor and witnessed, and that she was not coerced.

The court heard extensive evidence about the preparation and execution of the will. Solicitor Stephen Davies received telephone instructions on 8 July 2016 from someone he believed to be Mrs Reid, directing him to leave everything to Malcolm. On 12 July 2016, Davies and his assistant Helen Sadler attended Mrs Reid at home, where she confirmed her instructions, corrected the misspelling of her sons' surname in the draft, and executed the will after it was read through to her.

The defendants raised numerous grounds of suspicion, including that Malcolm had initiated the will-making process, that he may have been present during telephone instructions, that Mrs Reid had previously refused to make a will despite pressure from Malcolm, and that their relationship had become unhappy. They also pointed to an unfortunate typographical error in Davies's attendance note dated "12/7/17" rather than 2016, suggesting the note had been fabricated.

Judge Cadwallader firmly rejected these submissions. Applying the principles established in Gill v Woodall and the recent Privy Council decision in Pascall v Graham, he found that where a will has been read over to a testator before execution by a capable person, a very strong presumption of knowledge and approval arises. The will was short, simple, and reflected Mrs Reid's clear instructions. Her decision, whilst representing a change of position, was explicable by Malcolm's role as her full-time carer during terminal illness and his legitimate concern about becoming homeless.

The court also found the claim would have been barred by laches in any event. The defendants had known the will's terms since November 2016 and obtained full details by April 2017, yet did not issue proceedings until 2025—a delay of at least seven and a half years. This delay deprived the court of Malcolm's evidence (he died in 2024) and inevitably weakened other witnesses' memories, substantially prejudicing the fact-finding process.

The judgement serves as a reminder that disappointed beneficiaries face a high threshold when challenging professionally prepared wills, particularly where delay has compromised the available evidence. The court directed a grant of probate in solemn form, upholding testamentary freedom over family expectation.

Copyright & permissions