Deathbed Wills: How the Patel Case Shows They Can Be Overturned

A terminally ill father changes his Will in hospital, cutting out two of his three children and leaving everything to one daughter. The family home (worth £600,000) hangs in the balance. Two months later, the father is dead. The disinherited siblings take the matter to court. The result? The deathbed Will is struck down, the previous Will reinstated, and the daughter who stood to inherit everything is left facing legal costs of over £400,000.

This is not a hypothetical. It is exactly what happened in Stewart-Brown v Patel, decided in the High Court in December 2025. And it illustrates, in vivid and practical terms, how the law deals with Wills made in suspicious circumstances at the end of life.

What Happened in the Patel Case?

Laxmikant Patel was 85 years old, terminally ill with lung cancer, and confined to a hospital bed at Northwick Park Hospital in London when his last Will was prepared in August 2021. He died just two months later, in October 2021.

His previous Will, made in 2019 when he was in better health, had left £50,000 to his eldest daughter Anju Patel, with the rest of the estate split in shares of 33 percent to each of his three children (Anju, his son Piyush Patel, and his younger daughter Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown) and one percent to a charitable trust administered by Anju. His main asset was the family home in Harrow, worth approximately £600,000.

The 2021 Will was drastically different. It left the house entirely to Anju. Piyush and Bhavenetta each received just £250.

Anju claimed that her father had lost faith in his other two children. She said he had described Piyush as “hugely controlling” and complained of Bhavenetta’s “bad temper” and of her taking “massive advantage” of him. A family associate, Vijaykant Patel, who acted as executor of the 2021 Will, claimed to have visited Laxmikant in hospital and taken instructions, with Laxmikant expressing “revulsion” towards Bhavenetta and Piyush and stating that “everything goes to Anju.”

Bhavenetta challenged the Will. She argued that a “cloud of suspicion” hung over the way it was drawn up and executed. The Will had been made while her father was frail, terminally ill, and in a hospital subject to Covid visiting restrictions that limited who could see him.

Why the Court Struck Down the Will

Deputy Master Jason Raeburn ruled in Bhavenetta’s favour, declaring the circumstances of the 2021 Will “highly suspicious.” The Will failed on two separate grounds.

1. Lack of Due Execution

For a Will to be valid under the Wills Act 1837, it must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses, who must each also sign in the testator’s presence. All the relevant signatures must be made at the same time, using the same pen.

In this case, the judge found that the signatures on the face of the Will had plainly not been made with the same pen. Both witnesses claimed they had used the same pen as Laxmikant, but the document itself told a different story.

The judge concluded: “I am not therefore satisfied that a signature was made by [Laxmikant] in the presence of all the witnesses at the same time, so there was no due execution of the will.”

This is a point that catches many people by surprise. A Will can look perfectly proper on its face and still fail because the formalities of execution were not correctly observed. The witnesses do not simply need to sign. They need to sign in the right way, at the right time, and in the right circumstances.

2. Lack of Knowledge and Approval

Even where a Will is properly signed, the court must be satisfied that the testator actually knew and approved of its contents. Where suspicious circumstances exist, the burden falls on those relying on the Will to prove that the testator understood what was in it.

The judge identified several features that made the 2021 Will suspicious:

• A drastic departure from previous Wills. Laxmikant had made at least two earlier Wills (in 2018 and 2019) that split his estate broadly equally between his children. The 2021 Will effectively disinherited two of three children with no clear or independently verified explanation.
• The testator was gravely ill. Laxmikant was terminally ill with lung cancer, dependent on oxygen, and confined to a hospital bed.
• Covid restrictions. Hospital visiting rules limited who could see Laxmikant, raising questions about who had access to him and whether he was isolated from family members who might have questioned the change.
• The language of the Will. The Will was written in English. There were questions about whether Laxmikant, who had migrated from Uganda in the early 1970s, was sufficiently fluent in English to fully understand a legal document.
• The role of Vijaykant Patel. The instructions for the Will were said to have been given to Vijaykant, who was known to Anju through the Hare Krishna temple and who became the executor. The involvement of a person connected to the main beneficiary in taking instructions for a Will is exactly the kind of circumstance that raises judicial concern.

The judge concluded: “I have arrived at the clear conclusion that those propounding the 2021 will have not discharged the burden of establishing that he knew and approved its contents.”

The 2021 Will was struck out and the 2019 Will reinstated, splitting the estate roughly three ways.

The Costs Consequences Were Devastating

The financial outcome for Anju was severe. Under the reinstated 2019 Will, she was entitled to approximately £250,000, but the judge ordered her (jointly with Vijaykant Patel) to pay Bhavenetta’s legal costs of fighting the case, which Bhavenetta’s barrister said amounted to £380,000, with VAT to be added, taking the total bill to over £450,000. Anju also had to pay her own undisclosed legal costs. The judge ordered an up-front payment on account of around £180,000 plus VAT, and refused Anju’s application for permission to appeal.

In practical terms, Anju went from expecting to inherit the entire £600,000 estate to being left with nothing, and potentially owing money. The costs bill alone was almost twice what she was entitled to under the 2019 Will.

This is an important reality of contested Will cases. If you defend a Will that the court ultimately strikes down, you may not only lose the inheritance but also end up liable for the other side’s costs. It is one reason why early legal advice is so important for all parties.

What Makes a Deathbed Will Vulnerable to Challenge?

The Patel case is a textbook example, but the principles apply much more broadly. Courts are naturally cautious about Wills made in the final weeks or months of life, because the testator is often at their most vulnerable: physically weak, potentially confused, and heavily dependent on whoever has access to them.

The key warning signs include:

A Sudden and Drastic Change

If a Will made shortly before death is dramatically different from previous Wills, particularly if it favours one person at the expense of others who were previously provided for, the court will want to know why. A lifetime of even-handed provision followed by a last-minute change that benefits one child exclusively is inherently suspicious.

The Beneficiary’s Involvement in Preparation

Where the person who stands to benefit from the Will was involved in arranging it (whether by choosing the solicitor, giving instructions, or being present when it was signed), this is a classic marker of suspicious circumstances. It does not automatically invalidate the Will, but it shifts the burden of proof onto those defending it.

Illness, Medication, and Cognitive Decline

Terminal illness, heavy medication, delirium, and cognitive decline can all affect a person’s capacity to understand and approve a Will. The court will look at the medical evidence and consider whether the testator was capable of understanding the nature and extent of their estate, the claims of those who might reasonably expect to benefit, and the effect of the provisions they were making.

Isolation from Family

Where the testator was physically isolated (whether due to hospital visiting restrictions, care home rules, or the actions of individuals around them) and the Will was made during that period of isolation, this increases the court’s suspicion. Covid-era restrictions have made this an increasingly common feature of contested Will cases.

Language and Communication Barriers

If the Will was written in a language that the testator did not speak fluently, or if there are doubts about whether the contents were properly explained to them, this goes directly to the question of knowledge and approval.

The Legal Grounds for Challenging a Deathbed Will

If you believe a loved one’s deathbed Will does not reflect their true wishes, there are several legal grounds on which it can be challenged.

Lack of Due Execution

Under section 9 of the Wills Act 1837, a Will must be signed by the testator (or by someone in their presence and at their direction), and that signature must be made or acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses, who must each sign in the testator’s presence. If any part of this procedure was not followed correctly, the Will is invalid.

In a hospital setting, the formalities of execution are particularly prone to error. Witnesses may sign at different times, the testator may be too weak to sign properly, or the procedure may be rushed or poorly documented.

Lack of Testamentary Capacity

The test for testamentary capacity comes from Banks v Goodfellow (1870). The testator must have understood:

• The nature of making a Will and its effects.
• The extent of their estate.
• The claims of those who might reasonably expect to benefit.
• That they were not suffering from any disorder of the mind that influenced their decisions.

Where a Will is made during a period of serious illness, the question of capacity is often central. Medical records, hospital notes, and evidence from treating clinicians can be decisive.

Lack of Knowledge and Approval

Even if the testator had capacity, the court must be satisfied that they knew and approved of the Will’s contents. Where suspicious circumstances exist (such as those present in the Patel case), the burden shifts to those defending the Will to affirmatively prove that the testator understood what they were signing.

Undue Influence

If someone exerted pressure on the testator to make or change their Will, the Will (or the affected provisions) can be set aside. Undue influence in the context of Wills requires coercion: something that overpowers the testator’s free will. Physical isolation, emotional manipulation, and control over access to the testator are all relevant factors.

Proving undue influence is notoriously difficult because it typically happens behind closed doors, but the circumstances of a deathbed Will, where the testator is physically dependent on others, can make it easier to establish.

What Should You Do If You Suspect a Deathbed Will Is Invalid?

If a loved one made a Will shortly before death that seems out of character, favours one person disproportionately, or was prepared in circumstances that concern you, take the following steps:

Act quickly. There are time limits for challenging a Will, and a caveat should be entered at the Probate Registry as soon as possible to prevent a grant of probate being issued. Once probate is granted, it becomes more difficult (though not impossible) to challenge the Will.

Gather evidence early. Medical records, hospital visitor logs, correspondence, and witness statements are all potentially relevant. The sooner you start collecting evidence, the better, because memories fade and records can be harder to obtain as time passes.

Look at the previous Wills. If the deathbed Will is dramatically different from earlier Wills, this is significant. The contrast between the Wills is itself evidence that supports a challenge.

Seek specialist legal advice. Will disputes are a specialist area of law. A solicitor experienced in contentious probate can assess the strength of your case and advise on the best course of action. Many firms, including ours, offer a free initial assessment and can act on a no win no fee basis, meaning you do not pay legal fees unless your case succeeds.

The Patel Case Is a Warning, But Also a Reassurance

The outcome in Stewart-Brown v Patel sends a clear message. The courts take the integrity of the Will-making process seriously. A deathbed Will that does not comply with legal formalities, or that was made in suspicious circumstances without clear evidence that the testator understood and approved its contents, will not stand simply because it was the last document signed.

For families who have been cut out by a last-minute Will, the case is reassuring. It demonstrates that the legal system can and does intervene to protect against Wills that may not reflect the testator’s true and informed wishes.

If you are concerned about the validity of a loved one’s Will, particularly one made during a period of illness, contact us for a free, no-obligation assessment of your case.