EWJ Dec 2023 - Journal - Page 75
Will Forgery: Where Experienced
Experts Come in Handy
by Georgia Sutton, Associate, Private Wealth Disputes and Lydia Kember, Associate, Private
Wealth Disputes
Judgment was handed down this month by Master Julia Clark in the case of Watts v Watts
(Watts v Watts [2023] EWHC 679 (Ch)). The claim concerned whether the last Will of Mr
Eustace Watts (dated 8 February 2000) (the 2000 Will) was a forgery.
The hearing attracted the attention of the UK press,
primarily due to the case’s somewhat intriguing
history, in that it concerned the estate of the late Mr
Eustace Watts, formerly a well-known leader of a Calypso band and his wife Jobyna Watts, who was a
showgirl at the Windmill Theatre in London’s West
End.
characterised as “a memorable character”) about the
production of his 2000 Will and his attending her office to sign the 2000 Will. Master Clark also accepted
that Sarah Evans had received clear instructions from
Eustace Watts that he wished for Jobyna, should she
survive him, to be the sole beneficiary of his estate to
the exclusion of Carlton.
The Facts
Eustace Watts died on 29 April 2008. He was married
to Jobyna Watts for 53 years and together they had
two sons – Carlton and Fraser. The 2000 Will bequeathed Eustace’s entire estate to Jobyna. An earlier
will (made in 1994) had left Eustace’s estate in equal
shares to Jobyna, Carlton, and Fraser.
Carlton appeared as the only witness of fact in
support of his claim. Mrs Watts, Fraser, and Sarah
Evans all appeared as witnesses of fact in defence of
the claim.
Expert Evidence
Both Carlton and Jobyna had handwriting experts to
examine and provide expert evidence on the
deceased’s signature.
Carlton issued the claim against his mother, Jobyna, in
April 2020, alleging that his late father’s 2000 Will was
a forgery (i.e., that the signature was not made by him
but by Jobyna). Where a will appears to have been
properly executed, the burden of proof is on the
person bringing the claim (i.e., Carlton) to show the
signature is a forgery.
Handwriting experts analyse handwritten text using
scientific methods, in order to determine whether text
which is purported to be by one individual matches
their handwriting. Handwriting experts should be
distinguished from graphologists, who examine handwriting traits, such as fluency, to help assess and ascertain whether the handwriting is by the individual
concerned.
Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 sets out prescriptive
requirements for the valid creation of a will in England and Wales. One of these requirements is that a
will must be “signed by the testator, or by some other
person in his presence and by his direction”. Each witness to a will must attest and sign the will or acknowledge his signature in the presence of the testator. In
this case, the witnesses to the 2000 Will were Sarah
Evans, the solicitor who had prepared it, and a legal
assistant from the same law firm.
Carlton’s handwriting expert, Mr Douglas Cobb’s
findings, were heavily criticised by Master Clark. She
questioned his qualifications and his reliance on one
example of Jobyna’s signature. He was unable to explain the relevancy of various inconsistencies between
the original 2000 Will and a later photocopy of the
same.
The 2000 Will was produced on a screen-typewriter
and a PDF copy of it was filed in November 2020 following a directions order of the Court. Jobyna had
given Carlton a photocopy of the 2000 Will in 2009,
following his father’s death. In June 2009, Carlton visited the firm where Sarah Evans had worked and confirmed that he was satisfied that the original was
identical to the copy he had been shown by his
mother.
Jobyna’s expert was Mr Michael Handy, an
experienced expert who had given evidence on the
forensic examination of documents in multiple court
proceedings. Mr Handy drew the Court to his examination of Eustace Watts’ signature of which he provided numerous examples made over more than
sixty-five years. Across these examples, including the
2000 Will, “there were no apparent significant differences between comparable components”. Master
Clark commented in her judgment that she agreed
with Mr Handy that the signatures in the original
2000 Will were “fluently made” and so could not have
been traced at a later date.
Witness Evidence
During the proceedings, Master Clark accepted the
evidence of the solicitor Sarah Evans. She recalled
having two meetings with Eustace Watts (whom she
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
73
DECEMBER 2023