Analysis
The deceased was born in pre-partition India in 1942, later living in Pakistan. She moved to England in 1965 where she married her husband who was also living in England. In 1986, the couple purchased an English property where they lived until the husband’s death in early 2015. Later in 2015 the deceased returned to Pakistan to live with her nephew. The deceased died in hospital in 2017 three weeks after making her final will which left her estate entirely to her nephew’s son. This was a significant departure from the mirror will she had executed with her husband in 1993, under which her family and her husband’s family would benefit broadly equally. The main asset of the estate was the English property. The 14 beneficiaries of the earlier will commenced probate proceedings in Pakistan. A defendant to those proceedings subsequently applied for probate in England. An application was made to stay the English proceedings as Pakistan was the more convenient forum.
Held:
Pakistan was the natural forum. All of the parties with a beneficial interest in the litigation and the material witnesses, including the will draftsman and the person who gave instruction to the draftsman, were either in Pakistan or had filed evidence setting out they wished the matter to be determined there.
Following partition, the deceased’s domicile was Pakistan. Clear and cogent evidence was required to establish that an individual had acquired and abandoned a domicile of choice.
The court was not persuaded by scurrilous accusations that the Pakistani judiciary lacked expertise, made irrational orders and did not apply the relevant law.
JUDGMENT MASTER SHUMAN: [1] The issue at the heart of this claim is whether the will of Mrs Ali, the deceased, dated 17 November 2017 and made in Pakistan (the 2017 will), is valid and whether that issue should be determined in Pakistan or England. The 2017 will was a radical departure from an earlier …Continue reading "Rehman v Hamid [2021] WTLR 663"