{"id":4163,"date":"2023-09-05T06:33:04","date_gmt":"2023-09-05T06:33:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/simplylaw.waydevelopers.com\/england-wales\/cross-border-probate-case-study\/"},"modified":"2024-05-25T11:36:03","modified_gmt":"2024-05-25T11:36:03","slug":"cross-border-probate-case-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/simply.law\/england-wales\/blog\/cross-border-probate-case-study\/","title":{"rendered":"Cross-Border Probate Case Highlights Key Jurisdiction Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cross-border probate disputes are inherently complex and also have a tendency to be high-value, although as the world becomes increasingly connected, such disputes are becoming a more common feature for families across all kinds of economic groups.<\/p>\n

The recent case of Rehman v Hamid [2019] EWHC 3692 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder of the need to ensure the correct jurisdiction for a dispute arising in relation to cross-border probate issues<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Rehman v Hamid<\/h2>\n

The case concerned the mirror wills made by a married couple, Mr and Mrs Mukhtar Ali, in the UK on 23 February 1993. Each appointed the other as executor\/executrix, with each also bequeathing their estate to the other, with a default distribution to be made between 14 beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

However, on 13 January 2015 Mukhtar died and on 17 April 2016 Mrs Ali made a codicil to her 1993 Will in which she appointed a new executor. Then, on 17 November 2017, around three weeks before her death, Mrs Ali made a new Will in Pakistan. Under this Will, Mrs Ali left the whole of her estate to a child of the family who had not been a beneficiary under the 1993 UK Will.<\/p>\n

Jurisdiction \u2013 the key question<\/h2>\n

Courts in both Pakistan and England were asked to determine where a claim regarding the validity of the 2017 Will should be heard; with the beneficiaries of the 1993 Will arguing that the 2017 Will was either forged or written at time when Mrs Ali lacked testamentary capacity.<\/p>\n

The court considered the case in light of the House of Lords decision reached in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Limited [1987] AC 460. In this case, the claimant had asked for a stay of English proceedings on the basis that another jurisdiction was more appropriate. In the Ali case, Master Shuman considered the burden to be on the defendant to demonstrate that England was not the correct forum for the trial and to establish that Pakistan was more appropriate than the English court.<\/p>\n

She added that if she found that another forum was clearly more appropriate for the trial she would be able to grant a stay unless circumstances could be shown by the claimant that the stay should not be granted.<\/p>\n

Finding an answer \u2013 the court\u2019s criteria<\/h2>\n

Against this background there were several important points:<\/p>\n