A First in British Legal History: Signed, Sealed, Protected

For the first time in British legal history, the High Court has ruled to seal the will of a non-royal, preventing public access to the testamentary wishes of an alleged member of the IRA’s notorious “nutting squad” and British spy, potentially setting a precedent for the sealing of Wills to prevent harm to a testator’s family and associates going forward; see Michael Johnson v His Majesty’s Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943 (Ch).

Under section 124 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, “all original wills… shall, subject to the control of the High Court and to probate rules, be open to inspection.” The probate rule in question is Rule 58 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 which states that, “an original will… shall not be open to inspection if, in the opinion of a district judge or registrar, such inspection would be undesirable or otherwise inappropriate.”

In other words, all Wills become public unless the High Court determines otherwise. In assessing whether to prevent the inspection of a Will, the High Court will consider whether the inspection of a Will would be undesirable or otherwise inappropriate.

Background

Judgment in the case of Michael Johnson v His Majesty’s Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943 (Ch) was handed down on 28 July 2025. The deceased in this case (the ‘Deceased’) was a highly controversial figure, alleged to have been a leading figure in the Irish Republican Army’s (‘IRA’) “nutting squad;” a group tasked with the interrogation and murder of suspected British spies in the IRA. However, in 2003, newspaper articles were published stating that the Deceased was himself a British spy, responsible for torturing and murdering of dozens of alleged IRA informers as part of his role in the “nutting squad” – claims which the Deceased denied.

Nevertheless, the threats on the Deceased’s life following the articles’ publications were so grave as to warrant a move to England, a change of name, several subsequent relocations, and, in 2006, an injunction by the High Court of Northern Ireland prohibiting the publication of information which might lead to the Deceased being identified or his whereabouts discovered.

In the event, such attempts were unsuccessful; the Deceased’s identity was revealed many times subsequently, and the threats to his life persisted until his death. In 2017, 14 years after the news publications, the Deceased was still viewed as the number one target by a group of individuals who did not support the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

It was in that stark context that after the Deceased died on 28 March 2023, Mr Johnson (the individual who was prepared to act as the Deceased’s personal representative after the named executors renounced, provided that the will was sealed and his true identity kept secret) was concerned that if he were to act as the Deceased’s personal representative and the Deceased’s Will were to be made public, it would jeopardise the safety of himself and those named in the Will. Mr Johnson, therefore, applied to the High Court to “seal” the Deceased’s Will and prevent it being accessed by the public.

Decision

The Court ordered that the Deceased’s Will be sealed from public access for the next 70 years, marking for the very first time in British legal history that the Will of a non-royal individual be sealed, the latest being the decision in the case brought by Prince Philip’s executors (Re: The Will of His late Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh [2021] EWHC 77 (Fam)) who also sought to retain the confidentiality of the Royal’s testamentary wishes.

In arriving at his conclusion, Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor of the High Court, went through various benefits of having a Will in the public domain, and why, in this case, the Will should be kept sealed:

However, Sir Julian Flaux C gave particular regard in his judgment to the need to protect Mr Johnson and those named in the Deceased’s Will. Alongside the persistent and credible death threats against the Deceased during his lifetime, the Deceased had 16 civil claims brought against him in the High Court of Northern Ireland, including allegations of false imprisonment, unlawful detention, and complicity in murder which were all live at the time of his death. There would, therefore, be a very real risk that those individuals named in the Deceased’s Will, whose addresses are also likely to be contained within, would be at risk of physical harm or death due to any perception of “guilt by association” with the Deceased. Sealing the Deceased’s Will was, therefore, considered essential to protect those named within it.

Conclusion

It would be somewhat insipid to end on a typical “what can we learn from this?” conclusion in the context of such a singular case. That said, it is noteworthy that this case comes in the wake of the identify of special forces operatives being accidentally put into the public domain, thus putting their lives, and those of their family and associates, at peril. In that context, it is far from implausible that this case sets a precedent to seal the Wills of other individuals whose family and beneficiaries might be put at risk by a Will being made public.  After all, it is not just Royals whose Wills can be sealed from the public eye now.

This article was written by Barny Croft and Ben Green. For any enquiries, please contact a member of our team on 01473 406386 or at disputeawill@birketts.co.uk.