Kevin Patrick Reeves, also known as Kevin Patrick Frain, built a fortune estimated at up to £100 million from property and other investments before his death in February 2019, aged 71. His estate later became the centre of a dispute between his children and grandchildren over which of two wills reflected his wishes. A 2014 will left 80% of the residuary estate to his youngest daughter, Louise Reeves, while her half-sister Lisa received the remaining 20%. Reeves’ son Simon, known as Bill, challenged the document and sought to have an earlier 2012 will recognised instead. The case eventually reached the England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division).
Kevin Patrick Reeves’ 2014 will dramatically changed the inheritance
The 2014 will represented a major change from the arrangement set out in Kevin Reeves’ earlier testament. Under the 2014 document, Louise Reeves received 80% of the residuary estate, alongside a specific property and her father’s Rolls-Royce Phantom. Her half-sister Lisa Murray received the remaining 20% of the residuary estate and another specific property. Reeves’ son Bill was left only certain personal possessions, while his grandchildren Ryan and Ria were excluded from the later will. The earlier 2012 will had instead divided 80% of the estate equally between Louise, Lisa and Bill, with the remaining 20% divided equally between Ryan and Ria.
Bill challenged whether his father understood the will
Bill opposed the 2014 will, arguing that his father had not known or approved its contents and, alternatively, that it had been procured through undue influence by Louise. The High Court heard evidence during a three-week trial, with the judgment recording testimony from 49 witnesses. A central issue was Reeves’ ability to understand the document he signed. The court considered his limited literacy alongside his considerable business experience and the substantial change between the 2012 and 2014 wills. The challenge was therefore not simply about whether the distribution appeared unequal, but whether the later document represented Reeves’ properly understood testamentary intentions.
The Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in the City of Westminster (Image: Wikipedia)
The High Court rejected the 2014 will
In 2022, the High Court ruled in favour of the earlier 2012 will rather than the 2014 document. The court did not uphold the allegation that Louise had exercised undue influence over her father. Instead, the 2014 will was rejected because the evidence did not establish that Reeves knew and approved its contents. The earlier will consequently governed the distribution of the estate. Under that document, Louise, Lisa and Bill were each entitled to an equal share of 80% of the residuary estate, while Ryan and Ria shared the remaining 20%. The outcome meant the 80% provision in Louise’s favour under the later will did not stand.
The 2025 case concerned the legal costs of the dispute
The case returned to the High Court in 2025, but this time the issue was costs rather than which will was valid. In Reeves v Frain & McKinnon, Mr Justice Dexter Dias considered an appeal concerning the costs of the earlier litigation. Simon Frain and Mark Ryan McKinnon had challenged an earlier costs decision involving damages-based agreements used by their solicitors. The 2025 judgment upheld the relevant ruling that those agreements could not support recovery of the solicitors’ fees in the way claimed.