Factual and Procedural Background
This judgment concerns a claim brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant and another Defendant relating to their mother's will and estate. The claim partly seeks to revoke the grant of probate of a will made by the deceased mother, alleging undue influence by the first Defendant and lack of knowledge or approval of the will's contents. Additionally, it includes derivative claims on behalf of the estate, notably to set aside an assignment of a half share of the beneficial interest in the family home to the Defendants, alleged to have been procured by undue influence, as well as claims for accounts relating to rents received by the first Defendant and other relief.
Procedurally, extensive correspondence preceded the formal claim, including a pre-action disclosure order in 2018 and subsequent third party disclosure relating to an earlier will from 2002. The claim form was issued in September 2019 and served on the Defendants, who did not acknowledge service or file defenses. The court ordered the matter to proceed on written evidence only, with the trial held remotely in July 2020. The Defendants represented themselves and did not file evidence.
The deceased was born in 1928, married a builder who was declared bankrupt in 2001, and they had two daughters: the Plaintiff and the first Defendant. The family home, known as the property, was encumbered by a substantial bank charge. After the husband's death intestate in 2008, the first Defendant was granted letters of administration for the benefit of the deceased. The deceased later assigned half her beneficial interest in the property to the Defendants in 2010, following payment by the Defendants to discharge the bank charge. The disputed second will, made in 2012, named the first Defendant as sole beneficiary and executrix, departing from the earlier will which divided the estate equally between the daughters. The deceased moved into care and died in 2013.
The case focuses solely on whether the disputed will and the assignment of the property share were procured by undue influence or made without the deceased’s knowledge and approval, not on the family relationship breakdown.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the deceased had knowledge of and approved the contents of the disputed will made in 2012.
- Whether the disputed will was procured by undue influence exerted by the Defendants.
- Whether the assignment of a half share of the beneficial interest in the family home to the Defendants was procured by undue influence.
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to accounts of rents allegedly received by the first Defendant from letting the property.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
- The disputed will was made under undue influence by the first Defendant and/or without the deceased’s knowledge or approval.
- The assignment of half the beneficial interest in the property to the Defendants was procured by undue influence, with the Defendants exploiting a relationship of trust and confidence.
- The first Defendant financially abused the deceased, as evidenced by local authority investigations and unpaid care bills.
- The first Defendant was involved in the preparation of the disputed will and persuaded the deceased to exclude the Plaintiff and her children from the will and legacies.
- The transaction concerning the property was void or voidable due to conflict of interest and lack of independent legal advice.
- The property was allegedly let out by the first Defendant without proper accounting to the estate.
Defendants’ Arguments
- The first Defendant denies undue influence, asserting that the deceased knew and approved the will’s contents.
- The assignment of the property interest was a fair transaction reflecting the Defendants’ payment to discharge the bank charge and provided the deceased with greater security and value.
- The deceased was independently advised by solicitors who acted solely for her, and the first Defendant was not conflicted.
- The alleged financial abuse is unsubstantiated and based on the Plaintiff’s unsupported allegations.
- The property was not let, or at least there is no credible evidence of actual letting or rent received.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 (Ch) |
Framework for assessing knowledge and approval of wills; undue influence principles. |
Guided the court’s approach to whether the deceased knew and approved the will and the nature of undue influence in wills. |
| Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430 |
Presumption of knowledge and approval from capacity and due execution; burden of proof in will challenges. |
Supported the presumption that a properly executed will represents the testator’s intentions, subject to evidence to the contrary. |
| Hoff v Atherton [2004] EWCA Civ 1554 |
Need to prove knowledge and approval beyond capacity and due execution in some cases. |
Confirmed that knowledge and approval may require affirmative proof where suspicion is raised. |
| Fuller v Strum [2001] EWCA Civ 1879 |
Burden on propounder to prove knowledge and approval when suspicion arises. |
Applied to allocate burden of proof to the Defendant propounding the will. |
| Edwards v Edwards [2007] WTLR 1387 |
Summary of undue influence principles in testamentary dispositions. |
Informed the court’s analysis of undue influence, emphasizing that it must be proven and not presumed in wills. |
| Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch) |
Undue influence often proven by circumstantial evidence; higher standard for serious allegations. |
Guided the court to require cogent evidence for undue influence allegations. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773 |
Undue influence in inter vivos transactions; burden shifting and evidential presumptions. |
Applied to the claim concerning the assignment of property interest, clarifying when undue influence may be presumed. |
| Hunter v Atkins (1834) 3 My & K 113 |
Older authority on presumption of undue influence in relationships of trust and confidence. |
Referenced but distinguished as inconsistent with modern authority (Etridge). |
| Allcard v Skinner 36 Ch D 145 |
Requirement that transactions calling for explanation must be justified to rebut undue influence presumption. |
Supported the court’s view that the transaction must be explicable by ordinary motives to rebut presumption. |
| Niermans v Pesticcio [2004] EWCA Civ 372 |
Effectiveness of solicitor’s advice in negating undue influence. |
Considered in assessing whether the solicitor’s advice freed the deceased from undue influence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by emphasizing the legal standards applicable to probate claims, particularly the doctrines of knowledge and approval and undue influence. It noted that the burden of proving the deceased's knowledge and approval of the will lies on the propounder (the first Defendant), while the burden of proving undue influence lies on the challenger (the Plaintiff).
Regarding knowledge and approval, the court found that the deceased had testamentary capacity and the will was duly executed. The solicitors acted independently for the deceased, who was interviewed alone, and the will was read to her in her presence. The deceased signed a contemporaneous statement explaining her reasons for excluding the Plaintiff, which the court found credible. The alleged reluctance of the deceased to attend the solicitors’ office was not accepted as evidence of lack of approval.
On undue influence related to the will, the court held that the Plaintiff’s allegations lacked credible evidence. The deceased was frail but capable, and although reliant on the first Defendant, there was no indication she was coerced or that her will was overborne. The solicitor’s notes and medical opinion supported the deceased’s independent testamentary intentions.
Concerning the assignment of the property interest, the court applied the principles from Etridge and held that the relationship between the deceased and first Defendant was not a protected relationship automatically giving rise to a presumption of undue influence. While the deceased was vulnerable and relied on the first Defendant, she gave instructions and took advice. The transaction was explained by the payment of £20,000 by the Defendants to clear a substantial bank charge, which enhanced the deceased’s security and value in the property. The solicitor acted solely for the deceased, and the advice given was sufficient to dispel any undue influence.
The court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of financial abuse as unsubstantiated and noted that local authority proceedings were based on the Plaintiff’s complaints rather than independent evidence. The alleged letting of the property and claim for rent lacked evidential support.
Overall, the court found the Plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proof on any head of claim.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s claim.
The will was held to be valid, having been made with the deceased’s knowledge and approval and not procured by undue influence. Consequently, the Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue derivative claims based on intestacy or a previous will. Even if the will were invalid, the derivative claims concerning the assignment and rent would have failed on the evidence.
No new legal precedent was established. The decision affirms the application of established principles on undue influence and testamentary capacity, particularly emphasizing the importance of independent legal advice and the evidential burden in probate disputes.