A recent judgment has upheld the validity of the last will of Dervishe Halil, a Cypriot who moved to London in 1952 and died in 2021, leaving an estate of around £1.1 million. The ruling followed a challenge that claimed the will resulted from undue influence after Halil disinherited her daughter, prompting a dispute between siblings. The court rejected the challenge and affirmed the will, underscoring the judiciary’s cautious approach to overturning testamentary documents without clear and compelling evidence. Lawyers and families will see this as a reminder that suspicion, family tension, or unhappy outcomes do not, on their own, justify setting aside a will. The decision reinforces the central principle that the testator’s autonomy carries decisive weight when proper safeguards exist.
When and where: The decision came to wider attention on 17 November 2025 in reporting by Today’s Wills and Probate. The case concerns an estate linked to London, where Halil lived for decades, and reflects the approach taken by courts in England and Wales to allegations of undue influence in probate disputes.
A firm line on undue influence in will disputes
Courts in England and Wales set a high threshold for anyone seeking to overturn a will on grounds of undue influence. The challenger must prove that someone coerced the testator, such that the final document expressed the influencer’s wishes rather than the testator’s own. Evidence must go beyond general pressure, persuasion, or familial discord. Judges look for conduct that overbears the will of the testator, not merely influence in the ordinary sense.
This standard reflects long-standing doctrine that protects the freedom to dispose of property as one chooses, even in ways relatives may find harsh. The law accepts that older or vulnerable people may rely on relatives or carers. But reliance alone does not prove coercion. The court applied that cautious stance here, finding that the material before it did not meet the demanding test needed to set the will aside.
Testator autonomy and the weight of proper safeguards
When a professionally drafted will exists, courts place significant weight on the process by which it was prepared and executed. Attendance notes from the drafting lawyer, contemporaneous file records, and witnesses to the signing often carry strong evidential value. These records help show that the testator understood the act and approved the contents. They also help exclude undue pressure at the crucial moment.
This case continues that pattern. By upholding Halil’s last will in the face of an undue influence claim, the court signalled that clear documentary trails and orderly execution can tip the balance decisively. Even where family relations are difficult, properly recorded steps—such as a solicitor’s explanation of the will, verification of instructions, and witness confirmation—support the conclusion that the will reflects the testator’s true wishes.
Why suspicion and family conflict rarely suffice
Contested wills often arise in families with deep disagreements, uneven caregiving burdens, or perceived favouritism. Disinheritance of a child can sharpen those disputes. Yet courts consistently state that suspicion—even strong suspicion—does not meet the legal test. Claimants must present specific facts that show coercion or domination. Patterns such as isolation of the testator, secrecy around instructions, or controlling financial behaviour may be relevant, but they must tie to the making of the will itself.
The ruling in Halil’s estate aligns with that approach. The existence of sibling conflict and a drastic change in provision can invite scrutiny, but they do not prove wrongdoing. The court looked for clear, cogent proof that someone overrode Halil’s free will. In the absence of such proof, the document stood.
The evidence courts look for—and what usually fails
When families allege undue influence, courts assess a range of material: medical records, solicitor and adviser notes, witness testimony, and financial histories. Patterns of dependence or vulnerability can inform the analysis, but vulnerabilities do not automatically translate to undue influence. The key question remains: did someone coerce the testator to make a will they did not want?
By contrast, evidence that often falls short includes broad allegations without dates, events, or witnesses; conjecture about motives; or retrospective interpretations of family arguments. Courts require concrete, contemporaneous material wherever possible. In probate, paper trails matter. That is why lawyers urge clients—especially elderly or infirm testators—to keep thorough records when updating a will.
How this judgment guides practitioners and families
For practitioners, the case reinforces the value of robust will?writing protocols. Clear attendance notes, confirmation of instructions in the testator’s own words, and independent witnesses all strengthen the will’s evidential foundation. Where any question about capacity or influence may arise, a medical opinion and separate meetings away from interested beneficiaries can help. These steps reduce the scope for later disputes and assist the court if a challenge occurs.
For families, the judgment offers practical lessons. If a parent intends to make uneven provision, explaining the reasoning to the drafting solicitor—and sometimes recording it in a separate letter of wishes—can provide helpful context. Caregivers should avoid involvement in giving instructions or controlling access to advisers. Transparency reduces suspicion and helps keep focus on the testator’s choices rather than on the dynamics among relatives.
The place of testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval
Undue influence is one ground for challenge, but courts also consider testamentary capacity and whether the testator knew and approved the will’s contents. The common law test for capacity looks at whether the testator understood the nature of making a will, the extent of their property, and the claims of those who might expect to benefit. If a professionally prepared will satisfies those elements and the testator appeared to understand the document, a challenger faces an even steeper climb.
In Halil’s case, the court’s validation of the final will indicates that the document met the standard expected of a valid testamentary act. While the dispute centred on undue influence, the broader framework—capacity, knowledge, and approval—offers context for why a court defers to a properly executed will in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.
What this means for future probate disputes
The decision sends a clear message to potential claimants: prepare robust, fact?based cases or think carefully before litigating. Courts guard the final wishes of a deceased person. They intervene only when evidence shows a serious legal flaw. Families considering a challenge should gather concrete materials—dates, witnesses, documents—and seek early legal advice on the strength of their position.
For advisers, the ruling supports continued emphasis on process and documentation. It also highlights the importance of neutral handling where family members disagree. Independent advice and careful file-keeping create the strongest defence against later allegations and protect the integrity of the testator’s choices.
The key takeaway
The court’s decision to uphold Dervishe Halil’s last will, despite claims of undue influence, reaffirms a central principle of probate law in England and Wales: overturning a will requires clear and compelling evidence. Family disputes, unequal gifts, or stark outcomes do not, by themselves, cross that threshold. Practitioners should continue to prioritise meticulous drafting, independent advice, and strong attendance notes. Families should focus on transparency and early planning to avoid disputes after death. As will challenges continue to surface, this judgment serves as a timely reminder that the law defends testamentary freedom and demands solid, specific proof before it sets a will aside.