A disputed will has been found to be a forgery in a high court decision after the death of Mr Monir Jaman Shaikh in April 2020 sparked a series of events which ultimately saw his only daughter disinherited.
The case was brought by Mrs Mosammat Shapna Khatun whose father, Mr Shaikh, had apparently disinherited his only daughter, leaving his estate, comprising 4 properties and his solicitor practice, to Shamin Hasan. Mrs Khatun contended it was ‘improbable’ her father had left his estate to Mr Hasan as she was ‘unaware, or only dimly aware’ of Mr Hasan’s role in Mr Shaikh’s life. He certainly didn’t have a relationship ‘akin to that of son, or nephew, or next of kin’ says the judgement.
The disputed will was alleged to have been created in 2019 and on Mr Shaikh’s death, was produced to a somewhat surprised Mrs Khatun. In her comments Deputy High Court Judge Caroline Shea KC said there were a number of circumstances around the drafting and storage of the will which alerted suspicion. There was no documented evidence of the execution of the will. No meeting notes, letters or messages were disclosed which provided any evidence of the meeting.
Despite Mr Shaikh entrusting his legal work to another legal firm J Stifford Solicitors, the will was allegedly drafted by Mr Shaikh and entrusted to a struck-off solicitor friend Mr Pathania. There were spelling mistakes and other oddities in the timing of the correspondence according to HHJ Shea and errors in the inclusion of properties in his homeland of Pakistan which Mr Shaikh did not own.
A handwriting expert also concluded there was ‘strong evidence’ to suggest the will had been executed not by Mr Shaikh, but by someone who was familiar with his signature.
“The Disputed Will as a whole does not present as the work of an accomplished lawyer. In addition to the minor spelling mistakes, it is an oddity to bequeath the residue of an estate when there has been no primary bequest in relation to which the remainder can be residuary. Paragraph 8, which directs the executor to distribute the residue of the estate, had a subclause a., but no further subclauses. It is not immediately apparent why the drafter felt the need to include clauses 9, 10, 11 and the following unnumbered paragraph, when clause 8 had already operated to bequeath the entire (residue of the) estate to Mr Hasan.”
said HHJ Shea.
With the onus to provide proof of the validity of will falling on the defendants, the judge said they had ‘failed to discharge the burden of proof.’ They had simply not adequately provided reasons for the failure to provide corroborating evidence of the will drafting meeting; explain the disparities in the accounts of Mr Hasan’s and Mr Shaikh’s relationship;
“These problems raise a number of unanswered questions with no reasons, or no adequate reasons, having been given why they have not been addressed by the Defendants. In view of the lack of corroborative evidence, and the evidential problems with the evidence that was given, in my judgment the uncorroborated oral testimony… is not of sufficient weight to stablish the genuineness of the Disputed Will or to overcome the issues to which I have referred.”
