KA-2025-000017 - [2025] EWHC 2311 (KB)

Green J’s judgment extends to 112 pages. I extract the most relevant passages from it for the purposes of this costs appeal:

“1.

Kevin Patrick Reeves (aka Kevin Patrick Frain) (the deceased or Kevin) was an extraordinary man who during his life built a fortune of up to £100 million from nothing. He died, unexpectedly, on 3 February 2019 at the age of 71 although he had been unwell for many years with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, or emphysema. His death has unleashed a bitter feud between his children and grandchildren that culminated in a three week trial during which I heard from 49 witnesses about whether a will made by the deceased on 7 January 2014 (the 2014 will) was his valid last will and testament.

2.

The Claimant, Ms Louise Reeves (the Claimant or Louise) is the youngest daughter of the deceased. She seeks to uphold the 2014 will and asks the Court to pronounce in favour of it in solemn form of law. Under the 2014 will, the Claimant received a specific property and the deceased’s Rolls Royce Phantom but most significantly she was left 80% of the deceased’s residuary estate. Her half-sister, Lisa Murray, the Third Defendant (Lisa) was left the remaining 20% of the residuary estate, together with a specific property. Lisa supports the Claimant in these proceedings and gave evidence for her.

3.

On the other side and opposing probate being granted of the 2014 will is the Second Defendant, Simon Frain (aka Simon Reeves, aka Bill Reeves) (Bill) who is the second son of the deceased. He says that the deceased did not know and approve the contents of the 2014 will; alternatively that it was procured and executed by the deceased as a result of undue influence exercised by the Claimant on him. Bill seeks to propound an earlier will made on 18 April 2012 (the 2012 will) by which the deceased’s residuary estate was split as to 80% between the Claimant, Lisa and Bill (ie 26.67% to each child) and the remaining 20% was split equally between the Fourth and Fifth Defendants (Ryan and Ria, respectively). Ryan and Ria are both grandchildren of the deceased as their father is Mark Reeves (Mark), the eldest son of the deceased. Mark was estranged from the deceased and did not feature in any will of the deceased. Ryan is separately represented in these proceedings but wholeheartedly supports Bill’s case.

12.

There are now only two broad issues for determination:

(1)

Whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will; and

(2)

Whether the deceased’s execution of the 2014 will was the result of the exercise by the Claimant of undue influence.

20.

The deceased’s rags to riches story is quite incredible. He was born on 29 October 1947 and was given up by his biological mother (Beatrice Frain) as an orphan to the local convent. He was then fostered to a large family with the surname Reeves and they had Irish traveller origins. The deceased’s foster mother died when he was 10. It is believed that by the time he was 12, he had left school, although he probably did not attend much before that. It is said on behalf of the Defendants that, as a result, he never learned to read or write.

21.

But he clearly possessed a sharp mind and tremendous business acumen. Everyone has attested to his skill with figures and there is little doubt that he used this and his ability to spot an opportunity and exploit it to his very great advantage. He was a tough no-nonsense negotiator and it brought him enormous success. His main business was property dealing, predominantly in the Southampton area where he lived, but he also dealt in cars, shares and currencies, making his own investment/trading decisions.

27.

Largely because the Claimant sided with Mark against her father, she and the deceased also fell out and did not speak for 4/5 years between 2004 and 2009, when the Claimant was 18 to 23 years old. The deceased disapproved of the people the Claimant was mixing and going out with in particular her relationship with a Mr Stephen McCarthy who was part of a well-known crime family in Southampton. The Claimant suffered an horrific injury during this period by being glassed in a pub by another woman in a random attack but the deceased responded to this by using the memorable but highly disturbing phrase “lay with dogs and you get fleas”. To say that of your daughter shows how offensive the deceased could be. If you were really out of favour with him, he would completely cut you off and have nothing to do with you. He would have no qualms about removing such a person from his will. The Claimant even said in her witness statement that during that time the deceased told her she was getting “f***ing nothing” if she sided with Mark.

28.

But they were reconciled in 2009 and the Claimant moved in with the deceased. She said that they thereafter had a very good, loving relationship and they went many times to Spain together. The Claimant said that the deceased wanted her to take over the business and he was training her up to do that. She had qualified as a hairdresser but from about 2011 onwards the deceased had wanted her to stop hairdressing and to work in and learn how to run his business. This, she said, is what was behind the 2014 will.

31.

Despite his evident serious ill-health, his death at home on 3 February 2019 was unexpected and quite sudden.

446.

As a result of my finding that the Claimant has not proved that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will, I must pronounce against the force and validity of the 2014 will. There is no dispute that the 2012 will was a validly executed will and I therefore pronounce for the 2012 will in solemn form of law.”