Langley v Langley: citations and court chaos

The recently reported case of Langley v Langley [2026] EWHC 1279 (Ch) has shone a spotlight on the ability to cite someone to propound a Will and how that Probate Registry process interacts with the probate claim procedure in the Chancery Division of the High Court. It is also a sorry example of the chaos that can so easily ensue when dealing with a litigant in person and over-stretched Court resources.

What are the different types of citation?

First, it is helpful to understand that there are two different types of citations (the litigant in person in Langley v Langley did not). 

• A citation to accept or refuse probate - You can cite someone named as executor in a Will to extract a grant. This form of citation can be used if someone named in a Will with priority to extract a grant is not getting on with doing so and also fails to renounce. If you cite them to extract a grant and they do not do so, you can sweep in and get the job done (only someone who has a right to extract a grant can take this course of action). It is not a process without risk, as if the person was delaying in the first place, they are arguably not the sort of person you want to extract a grant, and yet they may do so if you cite them to do so. Encouraging them therefore may come back to bite you. Other methods of passing over/removal may be more appropriate.
• A citation to propound a Will - You can cite those named as executors in a last Will, and anyone entitled under the last Will, to seek a grant proving the Will. This form of citation can be used when you believe the last Will is invalid. If the respondents to the citation fail to act, you can then apply to the Probate Registry for a grant as if the later Will was invalid. It follows that if, in practice, no-one is going to step up and extract a grant based on the last Will, this can be a swift way to admit a penultimate Will to probate. It can save on the cost of commencing a probate claim in the Chancery Division of the High Court challenging the validity of the last Will. However, if you know the executors and beneficiaries will extract a grant, it may only serve to increase costs as you would still have to bring a probate claim challenging that Will if appropriate.

The case

Langley v Langley concerned the estate of Anne Langley and a dispute between her two eldest children (Jeremy and Andrew) and her youngest child (Sophie). Sophie is challenging the validity of her late mother's last Will.

Having exchanged correspondence regarding the challenge to the validity of the Will, Sophie then applied for a citation requiring her brothers to propound the Will to be issued. She sent this application to the Leeds District Probate Registry which acknowledged receipt and on 8 October 2025 said it had been passed on to a Registrar for consideration. Sophie then contacted the Chancery Division of the High Court to let it know that she had done this (having got wind of the fact that her brothers may be about to issue a claim in the Chancery Division of the High Court seeking an Order upholding the validity of the last Will) and asked it not to issue any claim that may be submitted to it. However, on 9 October 2025, the Chancery Division of the High Court issued a claim submitted by the brothers to propound the last Will.

Sophie was furious and sent numerous missives to the Chancery Division complaining that it had issued her siblings' claim when she had already asked for a citation to be issued by the Probate Registry. She felt her application should have taken precedence as she had applied for a citation before her brothers had issued their claim. She therefore applied for her brothers' probate claim to be struck out or, at least, stayed until determination of the citation she had asked to be issued.

The judge noted that the citation had not actually been issued or sealed by the Probate Registry before the brother's probate claim was issued in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The point being that simply sending a draft citation to the Probate Registry does not amount to a citation being issued. Once a draft citation is lodged with the Probate Registry, it is only issued once it has been settled (ie agreed) by a District Judge or Probate Registrar, which can take some time and during that time period it is very difficult to get hold of anyone to find out what is going on. Unsurprisingly therefore, this did not happen before Sophie's brothers had issued their probate claim – the issuing of a claim in the Chancery Division being almost immediate upon the filing of it under the electronic filing system operated by the High Court. 

Sophie's application for a citation became incapable of being issued the moment the probate claim was issued as the whole purpose of the citation had been lost. The citation was calling the brothers to propound the Will and that was precisely what they had done by way of issuing the probate claim. Furthermore, a claim in the Chancery Division of the High Court supersedes any action that can be taken in the Probate Registry as it is a higher court.

It is not clear why Sophie was so keen for her citation to be issued when the result would only have been for her brothers to extract a grant of probate based on the last Will, the validity of which she would then have had to challenge via a probate claim. There is a strong possibility that she did not understand what the outcome of the citation process was going to be given that, having been through two firms of solicitors, she was now acting in person. This is an all-too-common feature of probate disputes recently. 

Key takeaways

The frustration of dealing with a litigant in person is exacerbated by understaffed court administration.  The judgment in Langley v Langley records a sorry tale of documents going missing when the matter was transferred from London to Bristol; the judge not being provided with all relevant documentation; then the judge not reading documentation correctly; then "for some reason, probably pressure of business in the court office" correspondence not reaching the judge; and, finally, a decision of the judge not being sent to Sophie due, it is assumed by the judge, to a backlog of paperwork in the court upon which the judge commented: "I am afraid that resource issues make this a common feature of our work." The difficulties arising from dealing with a litigant in person can pale in comparison with the challenges posed by a chaotic court back-office function. Our team have the expertise to help with both.