Matthew Brandis

Practice Areas

Matthew Brandis is the head of the Dispute Resolution practice at B P Collins. In addition to commercial disputes, Matthew specialises in contentious probate matters, handling a range of litigation involving wills, trust and probate. He has a particular focus on contentious inheritance disputes, including the validity of testamentary documents, claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 and disputes regarding the administration of trusts and estates.

Matthew and his team successfully supported their client in the high profile Watts v Watts case in the High Court (Chancery Division) during 2022 and 2023. Watts v Watts [2023] EWHC 679 (Ch) (03 April 2023) (bailii.org)

Matthew is a member of the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). His advice is sought by a large number of companies and individuals on a wide-range of disputes for over 22 years.

Chambers UK notes that Matthew is “highly experienced" with a “reassuring and calming manner” an “ability to connect at all levels”, "a steely opponent and someone who I can really trust to win" and “exceeding expectations”.

A client remarked to the firm that “Matthew is everything you want in a lawyer: expert, precise, detailed, always prepared, direct when needed, but professional at the same time. With common sense, a sense of humour and a refreshing ability to deliver no-nonsense, commercially sound guidance, that wastes neither your time nor money”.

Professional Memberships

Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS)

Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR)

Work Highlights

Watts v Watts [2023] EWHC 679 (Ch) (03 April 2023) (bailii.org)

Matthew Brandis and supported by solicitor, Imogen Pike, from B P Collins’ specialist contentious probate team, advised Mrs Jobyna Watts in case that has attracted much media attention involving an allegedly forged will – the case was brought by her son, Carlton Watts, regarding the estate of her late husband, Eustace Watts.

Eustace executed a will in 2000 and died in 2008. Carlton brought a claim in the High Court alleging that his father’s signature on the 2000 will was a forgery and wished the Court to pronounce in favour of an allegedly missing earlier 1994 will.

The trial of the preliminary issue, being whether the 2000 will was a forgery, began in the High Court last year, with live evidence heard from Carlton, both parties’ forensic handwriting experts, and a professional attesting witness – the solicitor who took the instructions, drafted, and witnessed the 2000 will – who recounted her clear recollections of the same in open court.

Mrs Watts subsequently provided her testimony in March 2023, denying that she had fabricated her husband’s will.

The judge decided completely in Mrs Watts’ favour and declared the 2000 Will was valid, and that there had been no fraud.

The case highlights the importance placed on the evidence of an attesting witness and, in addition, the extent to which an expert’s opinion withstands scrutiny in cross examination.