Ugolor & Ors v Ugolor & Anor: The Court’s Inquisitorial Role when assessing Will validity

Pamela Ayodele Festous died on 21 March 2020. She had seven children: the three claimants, her son Cameron, and three children who had been given up for adoption in the 1980s. The Deceased had no contact with those children who were adopted, and they could not be traced after her death.

The first defendant, Cameron, had supplied a homemade Will dated 2008, which named him as the executor and main beneficiary, with £100,000 to be held on trust for the benefit of the adopted children. There was no provision for the claimants, who sought to challenge the Will on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval, lack of testamentary capacity, and undue influence.

The estate had been the subject of Court proceedings from the outset, including in an order appointing an independent administrator. As a result of significant and continued non-compliance with various interim court orders, Cameron was debarred from defending the claim. Ordinarily, the Court could find in favour of the claimants automatically in such circumstances. However, as this was a probate claim, the Court could not give a default judgment and still needed to determine the validity of the Will. The trial was ordered to take place on the basis of written evidence.

It was held that the Will had not been executed in 2008 and was more likely to have been created around 2017; that Pamela had no hand in drafting the Will; and that it had plainly been prepared by Cameron, given the peculiarities of the drafting. Notably, these included the claim that the name ‘Cameron’ was used throughout, despite evidence that Pamela did not refer to him as ‘Cameron’ and that he himself had not started using it until well after 2008. Further, Cameron had previously tried to prove a Will for his late father, which named him as the sole beneficiary; this Will had also not been admitted to probate due to the apparent forgery.

The claimants were successful in that the Will was held to be invalid on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval; however, the Court found there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of lack of testamentary capacity. Additionally, whilst the Court found that undue influence may well have been exerted, there was no evidence to prove actual undue influence as is required.

Whilst the claimants ultimately succeeded and received a costs order on the indemnity basis from their brother personally, it is important to note that the Court retained jurisdiction and could well have found against them if the claim had not been fully made out. It is clear that the success of a claim will hinge on the quality and strength of the evidence available, regardless of the merit of the other parties’ position.

Read the full judgment here: Ugolor & Ors v Ugolor & Anor [2026] EWHC 745 (Ch).

Contact our Private Wealth Disputes solicitors today

If you have any issues covered in this article, please get in touch with our specialist Private Wealth Disputes team by using our online enquiry form or by calling 0330 191 4448.