A family friend lost her undue influence challenge to two wills. The Supreme Court still upheld an order that trial costs come out of the estate: her doubts were reasonable.
Klitos Platis, advocate
Your first message costs nothing: within one working day we tell you whether we can help and what it would cost.
klitos@kleanthousplatis.com
A woman who had been the substitute heir under an earlier will challenged the two later wills that left the estate to someone else, alleging undue influence. She lost at trial in Paphos and lost again on appeal. But on 12 October 2026 the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s order that the costs of both sides at trial be paid out of the estate, not by her. The doubts she raised were reasonable ones, the Court held, even though she could not prove them.
The general grounds for challenging a will are set out in our article on contesting a will in Cyprus. This judgment is useful for two narrower questions that people ask before they start: who pays if the challenge fails, and whether a will signed by an elderly person in hospital without a doctor’s certificate is weak for that reason alone.
Three wills in four years
The testatrix, Mathilde Palmer, made a will in January 2002 leaving everything to her husband and, if he died first, to the woman who later brought the claim, a close family friend. In February 2006 she made a second will leaving her estate to another long-standing friend. The lawyer who drew it up gave evidence that the original instructions had provided for both women, and that when Mrs Palmer came to sign she changed them, saying that the second friend “wants it all”.
On 1 May 2006 Mrs Palmer was admitted to hospital with a hypoglycaemic episode. Later that day, once it had been treated, she read and signed a third will, prepared on instructions she had given a different lawyer a few days earlier. It left her property in Cyprus to the second friend and expressly left nothing to her husband. She died seven days later, aged 81. Her husband then signed a renunciation of his inheritance rights and died that December.
Why the challenge failed
Under section 29 of Cap. 195 a will made as a result of coercion, fraud or undue influence is void. Section 2 defines undue influence as influence by someone in a position to dominate the testator’s will who uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage. In wills, unlike contracts, undue influence is never presumed. The person alleging it must prove, with positive evidence, that pressure was actually applied and that it overbore the testator’s will.
The claimant had real material: the testatrix’s age and illness, the hospital signing, the sharp change from the first will, and the remark that the second friend “wanted it all”. None of it showed how that wish was pressed on Mrs Palmer, or that it caused the wills. A testator is free to change her mind, and her motives for doing so do not matter if she has capacity. The forensic pathologist called by the claimant had never examined her, and none of her treating doctors gave evidence. The nurse who witnessed the will and the lawyer who prepared it described a woman who understood what she was doing, and the trial court believed them.
On the “golden rule”, the practice of having a doctor confirm capacity when an elderly or seriously ill person makes a will, the Court was clear. It is judicial advice on good practice, not a rule of law. A will is not invalid because it was not followed, and following it does not guarantee validity.
The claimant also tried, nearly four and a half years into the case, to add an allegation that the signature on the last will was forged. The Court upheld the refusal: forgery asks whether she signed at all, a different case from asking how she came to sign, and the delay was not explained.
Reasonable suspicion was enough to keep the trial costs off her. It was not enough to win.
Who pays when a will challenge fails
The ordinary rule is that costs follow the event, so the losing side pays. In disputes over the validity of a will, the Court accepted that costs may instead be paid from the estate where the circumstances justify it. Two things are weighed: whether the testator or people interested in the estate caused the dispute, and whether, on what the challenger knew or could reasonably have known, there was a reasonable basis for asking the court to look into it.
Being a beneficiary under an earlier will is not enough on its own. Here, though, the facts objectively called for investigation, and an unsuccessful challenge with a reasonable basis is not the same as one without any. The trial costs stayed on the estate. The appeal was different: she lost it, and was ordered to pay 4,500 euro costs to the respondents.
What this means in practice
If you are thinking of challenging a will, the question is not only whether you can win but whether your doubts would look reasonable to a judge on what you know now. Write down the facts that worry you and where they come from: a sudden change of beneficiary, a signing in hospital, a remark reported by the lawyer who drew the will. Then find the evidence that pressure was actually applied. Without that, suspicion keeps the costs off you at best; it does not overturn the will.
Ask early for the medical records and the evidence of the treating doctors. In this case the medical evidence came from an expert who had never seen the testatrix, and it carried no weight against the people who were in the room.
Put every ground in your claim at the start. A new allegation, such as forgery, raised years later may not be allowed in at all.
If you are making a will late in life or in poor health, or you are the lawyer taking the instructions, a doctor’s note made at the time remains the simplest way to avoid exactly this dispute, even though the law does not require it.
Our wills and succession practice advises before a challenge is brought, and our litigation team acts in will disputes in court.
Sources
- Eleni Stefanou-Metziti v. Olympia Pavlidou and Others, Civil Appeal 325/2017, Supreme Court of Cyprus, 12 October 2026
- The Wills and Succession Law, Cap. 195, consolidated text, sections 2, 22, 23 and 29, CyLaw
Need advice on your own matter?
Your first message costs nothing: within one working day we tell you whether we can help and what it would cost.
klitos@kleanthousplatis.com
Kleanthous & Platis LLC Registered law company Cyprus Bar Association HE 441973
Further reading
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and their application can change, and individual circumstances differ. For advice on your own matter, contact Klitos Platis at klitos@kleanthousplatis.com.
Receive legal updates by email
When Cyprus law changes, hear it from us
One short email when something changes that matters: new legislation, a decision worth knowing, a deadline. Written by the partners, no marketing, unsubscribe with one click.
You are on the list. The next update on Cyprus law will reach your inbox.
That did not go through. Please write to office@kleanthousplatis.com and we will add you.
Your address is used for these updates and nothing else. Privacy notice.