Elis Gomer successful in Neate v Heselden (Central London County Court, 24 October 2024)

Elis Gomer, instructed by Eleanor Clarke of Myerson Solicitors LLP, recently represented the successful Defendant in the contentious probate case of Neate v Heselden, heard over four days at Central London County Court.  The case attracted media attention, appearing in The Telegraph, Mail Online, The Times, and The Mirror, amongst others, due to its unusual circumstances involving a valuable stamp collection and a longstanding friendship between the testator, Raymond Watts (known as ‘Ray’), and his former cleaner, Susan Pope.

His Honour Judge Gerald delivered judgment on 24 October 2024, confirming the validity of Ray’s will dated 2 May 2019, as modified by a codicil dated 12 November 2020.  The judgment upheld his wish to leave legacies to his biological children and name his good friend Susan as the primary beneficiary of his estate.  In doing so, he dismissed the claims of Ray’s stepdaughter, Beverley Neate, who had contested the validity of the will on the basis of want of knowledge and approval.

Susan started working for Ray in 2011 after he had placed an advertisement for a cleaner. However, over the years, Susan became a close friend of Ray’s and shared in his hobby of philately – described in evidence as Ray’s ‘sole focus’ in later life – often taking Ray to stamp fairs across the country.  Ray became ill in the last years of his life, and Susan acted as a carer for him, taking him to all his medical appointments, visiting him in hospital and generally supporting him with daily living.

As HHJ Gerald commented during the trial, Susan was the “single biggest constant” in Ray’s life.  To thank her for her unwavering friendship and support, Ray decided to gift Susan his valuable stamp collection and leave the majority of his estate to her on his death.

In contrast, towards the end of Ray’s life, Beverley, Ray’s stepdaughter, started acting in ways described by Ray as “disrespectful and distressing.”  Her actions included entering his property while he was ill in hospital and hiring a locksmith to change the locks without informing Ray.

Ray was upset by Beverley’s behaviour and decided that he no longer wished to make meaningful provision for her in his will. To reflect this, he made the 2020 codicil to modify his 2019 will and reduce Beverley’s legacy from £15,000 to £1.

Beverley sought to establish that the 2019 will and 2020 codicil were invalid. She brought her claim on the grounds that Ray did not know and approve the content of the will or codicil and argued that his estate should be administered in accordance with his previous will dated 8 June 2007.

The First and Second Defendants are the executors and trustees of the 2019 will and remained neutral in the proceedings.  Beverley’s claim was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay the costs of all Defendants on an indemnity basis.  HHJ Gerald was highly critical of Beverley’s conduct during the claim, characterising her behaviour as “vengeful” and stating that he was satisfied that the only settlement she would have accepted“would have been total surrender by the Defendants”.