Outer House finds second wife of terminally ill man did not unduly influence creation of second will

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSOH 45
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lord Harrower

Nadeem-Ul Haq and three other children of the late Abdul Haq sought production and reduction of a will dated 11 February 2022 in which the entirety of the residue of his estate was left to his second wife Samina, convened as the third defender but not present in process. The first and second defenders were Graham Irvine and Carmen Maciver, the confirmed executors of Abdul’s estate under the 2022 will, who defended the action purely on the basis that the second will represented his true intentions and he had received independent legal advice prior to its preparation.

The case was heard in the Outer House of the Court of Session by Lord Harrower, with Whyte, advocate, appearing for the pursuers and Macleod, advocate, for the first and second defenders.

Concerns about the pursuers

Shortly after he received his cancer diagnosis in November 2021, the deceased had conversations with the pursuers in which he gave them to understand that he wished to prepare a will and that they would benefit from it. He had in fact made a previous will in 2004, in which his estate was to be distributed accordingly to principles of Islamic law, under which the children stood to benefit. However, the 2022 will left the whole residue of the estate to Samina. The first and second defenders did not play a role in the drafting and execution of Abdul’s will, which was prepared by Martin Monaghan, a solicitor at the same firm.

The deceased married Samina, a much younger woman from Pakistan, in 2009, and following the wedding they lived together in Murieston and had two children. The pursuers described how they formed a negative opinion of her over time, and how she acted cold, unkind, and abusive towards Abdul. Evidence was also given by his first wife Razia, who told the court that Abdul revealed to her that he regretted the marriage to Samina and felt manipulated by her.

Mr Monaghan gave evidence that during his meeting with the deceased he expressed concerns about the pursuers and said he wished to leave his entire estate to Samina to ensure her financial security and the care of his young children. He confirmed that Abdul had been perfectly conscious when he signed the will and nothing about the instructions he was given gave him cause for concern.

It was accepted by the pursuers that their case was circumstantial, however seven core circumstances were identified from which the court should infer the existence of facility and circumvention or undue influence. These included Abdul’s age and terminal condition, his willpower, and the fact that Samina would already have been provided for in Abdul’s lifetime.

Regardless of expectations

In his decision, Lord Harrower accepted that Abdul had been reluctant to discuss his reasons with his children towards the end of his life, but said: “It seems that Abdul, having formed an intention to exclude his children from his will, was understandably reluctant or unwilling to discuss that decision with them, or the reasons for it. In this context, it is relevant to note that Abdul was sufficiently astute to instruct Mr Monaghan as his solicitor, rather than go to Raeside Chisholm, whom Nawaz [the second pursuer] had wanted him to use. Moreover, Abdul’s insistence that Mr Monaghan should not leave him with a paper copy of the will, lest the pursuers discover it lying around, displayed a significant degree of mental acuity.”

He added: “I accept that Abdul may have lacked insight, from a medical point of view, into the consequences of his decisions. In short, Abdul was not necessarily the best judge of what was good for him. However, I do not accept that this particular aspect of his character rendered him more vulnerable to pressure or undue influence.”

Considering whether there was a basis for a conclusion of undue influence, Lord Harrower said: “While there was evidence in general terms that Samina sought to isolate Abdul from the pursuers, there was no evidence from which to infer that she had poisoned Abdul’s mind. Specifically, there was no evidence that she had any information about Abdul’s financial affairs, his property investments, Nawaz’s management of these, or indeed any of the motivations that Abdul had expressed to Mr Monaghan for wishing to make a new will.”

He concluded: “Abdul’s instructions were consistent across multiple meetings with his solicitors, and the will was prepared and signed with independent legal advice. Scots law gave Abdul the freedom to dispose of his estate as he saw fit, regardless of the pursuers’ expectations or beliefs. I am satisfied that the will reflected Abdul’s true intentions. His failure to revoke it further supports that conclusion.”

Lord Harrower therefore sustained the defenders’ plea-in-law and refused to grant the conclusions of the summons.