The High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the inherent tension between procedural discipline and the protection of vulnerable litigants, determining that the summary dismissal of a probate claim was a disproportionate response to the failures of a litigation friend.

Facts:

This case involves a high-stakes dispute over the estate of Kantaben Ratilal Patel, who passed away in December 2020. The conflict centres on two competing wills executed only one month apart. The first, signed in June 2020, left the family home to the deceased’s daughter, Priti Patel. The second, signed in July 2020 and prepared by a solicitor, changed these terms significantly by ordering the house to be sold, allocating £35,000 to a sister-in-law over alleged loans, and including a strict forfeiture clause that would disinherit anyone who challenged the document.

Ms. Patel launched a legal challenge against the latter July will on the grounds of undue influence and a lack of knowledge and approval. She contended that her mother, whose primary language was Gujarati, did not understand the complex legal terms and was pressured by other family members while she was terminally ill with cancer. Additionally, she alleged that signatures on the loan documents referenced in the will were forged.

As the litigation progressed, Ms. Patel was found to lack the mental capacity to conduct the proceedings herself due to severe post-traumatic stress (PTSD) and depression. Consequently, a professional litigation friend, Safina Bibi, was appointed to manage the case on her behalf. The proceedings eventually devolved into what the Court described as a procedural failure. The daughter and her litigation friend missed critical deadlines for serving witness statements and failed to apply for permission to use expert handwriting analysts. During a hearing in May 2025, the District Judge discovered that Dr. Prasad was actually a GP with GMC sanctions rather than a specialist psychiatrist, which cast doubt on the medical reasons cited for the delays. The Judge inferred that the litigation friend was intentionally stalling to allow Ms. Patel to remain within the family property.

In response to these failures, the Lower Court (LC) issued severe sanctions. It debarred Ms. Patel from calling any witnesses and granted summary judgement in favour of the estate. This effectively dismissed Ms. Patel’s claim without trial, triggered the forfeiture clause, effectively disinheriting her, and led to an order for her to vacate the family home within 28 days.

Decision:

The High Court set aside the summary judgement and overturned the most severe sanctions. Judge Keyser KC focused on balancing the Court's power to punish procedural failures with the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Judge systematically analysed why the LC’s "draconian" decision to end the case was legally flawed, while simultaneously condemning the behaviour of Ms. Patel's representatives.

The Judge ruled that the LC was wrong to conclude the daughter had "no real prospect of success". He pointed out that several factors, including the mother's limited English, the terminal nature of her illness, and the "odd" burial instructions in a Hindu context, created enough suspicion to require a full trial.

Instead of allowing the daughter to be debarred from giving any evidence at all, Judge Keyser KC implemented a creative procedural fix. He ordered that Ms. Patel’s ‘particulars of claim’ would officially stand as her witness statement.

While the Judge saved Ms. Patel’s case, he did not excuse the "clever" and "unreasonable" conduct of her litigation friend, Mrs. Bibi. He upheld the order that Ms. Patel and Mrs. Bibi must pay the legal costs of the other side on an indemnity basis.

Implications:

The most significant implication is the Court’s clarification on the role of a litigation friend. The judgement makes it clear that, once a litigation friend is appointed for someone lacking capacity, the case must move with the same speed as any other litigation. This prevents "indefinite stays" and ensures that executors can move toward settling estates, even when a claimant is unwell. The case also highlights the extreme personal and financial risk taken by those acting as litigation friends or ‘McKenzie friends’.

Judge Keyser KC’s decision to allow particulars of claim to stand as a witness statement is a landmark "rescue" tactic. It suggests that if a party has stated their case clearly in any document verified by a "Statement of Truth," the Court should favour using that document rather than ending the case entirely and triggering harsh "no-contest" clauses.