The last Will of a mother who disinherited her daughter, sparking a battle between siblings, has been ruled valid after claims it was subject to undue influence.
Dervishe Halil, a Cypriot who moved to London with her husband in 1952, died in 2021 leaving an estate worth c £1.1m. She had historically, through a series of wills written from October 2013 onwards, intended to leave her estate equally between her three children. Tensions heightened in 2015 when she wrote in a letter to her two youngest children, Aysel and Attila, telling them to mend bridges between them and their oldest brother Dogan, and to show their mother ‘love and respect.
Dervishe Halil’s final will, drafted three yeas later in 2018, disinherited her two youngest children, including a side letter which said
None of the conditions in the letter I sent three years ago were fulfilled. Unfortunately, nothing has changed.
“You still do not talk to your brother Dogan, and you still do not show me love and respect. You destroyed my home and I deleted you from my will.”
On Dervishe Halil’s death in 2021, youngest daughter Aysel contended Dogan had exerted undue influence on their mum and poisoning her mind in order to cut her out of her inheritance.
The case, heard at Central London County Court, heard Aysel argue Dervishe either must not have properly understood that she was leaving everything to Dogan in her last will, or that it was the result of undue influence from her oldest son.
Aysel claimed her older brother “worked on” their mother so that she “surrendered her judgment”, and pressured her to sign over her fortune, insisting that the two letters spelling out her mother’s reasons for disinheriting her were in truth inspired by Dogan. The will therefore should be ruled invalid for want of knowledge or approval or by reason of undue influence or fraudulent calumny on the part of Dogan argued Aysel’s barrister Peter John:
“The deceased had always indicated that she would deal with her estate on the basis of equality – informed by her cultural and religious background and her consistent approach towards her children throughout their lives.
“The deceased’s purported last will – the 2018 will – was, therefore, a shock to the claimant as the deceased’s only daughter, completely at odds with these statements, and also inconsistent with the relationship which she enjoyed with the deceased throughout her life.”
But Judge Mark Raeside KC rejected the claim, saying Aysel had become ‘fixated’ with trying to prove her brother was dishonest, when in fact he was a ‘dutiful son’ who had done his best for his ageing mother. Letters purported to have influenced by Dogan with ‘startlingly similar’ language, were ‘clear in what they say’ added the judge.
Dogan had no involvement in the drafting of the wills, with contemporaneous evidence Dervishe had attended her solicitor on her own, who recorded that she seemed mentally sharp and aware of what she was doing. When asked to explain her reasons for cutting out her children other than Dogan, she told her solicitor they were “not visiting her and not showing any interest”, said the judge. Rejecting claims that Dervishe lacked full testamentary capacity he said that although she had dementia symptoms by 2020 she was of sound mind in 2018 when the contested will was drafted.
The case highlights two important principles in English inheritance law said Barny Croft, Partner in the private wealth disputes team at Birketts LLP:
“First, testamentary freedom remains a cornerstone of our system – individuals are entitled to leave their estate as they choose, even if that decision appears harsh or unexpected. Second, claims of undue influence face a very high evidential threshold. The courts require proof of actual coercion that overbore the testator’s free will, not merely persuasion or family pressure.
“In this instance, the judge found that the mother’s decision was deliberate, documented in her own handwriting, and made while she retained capacity. These disputes are increasingly common, particularly where family relationships have broken down and significant assets are involved. But the courts remain cautious about overturning a will without clear and compelling evidence.”
