Factual and Procedural Background
The deceased was a wealthy individual who unexpectedly died in 2019, leaving behind a complex family dispute over the validity of his last will dated January 2014 (the 2014 will). The youngest daughter of the deceased, the Claimant, sought to uphold this will, which left her 80% of the residuary estate and specific properties, while a son, the Second Defendant, challenged its validity. He alleged that the deceased did not know or approve the 2014 will or that it was procured by undue influence exerted by the Claimant. The son sought to propound an earlier will from 2012 (the 2012 will), which provided a different distribution including the deceased’s grandchildren. The case involved extensive witness evidence over a three week trial, focusing on the deceased’s testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval of the 2014 will, and allegations of undue influence. The deceased’s literacy and the conduct of the solicitors involved in the will’s preparation were also key issues.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will;
- Whether the deceased's execution of the 2014 will was the result of undue influence exercised by the Claimant.
Arguments of the Parties
Claimant's Arguments
- The 2014 will represented the deceased’s true testamentary intentions, supported by the involvement of the deceased’s solicitor and the execution formalities.
- The deceased had testamentary capacity and the will was properly executed.
- The deceased’s literacy skills were sufficient to understand and approve the will, or the will was read to him.
- The Claimant denied exerting undue influence and maintained a loving relationship with the deceased.
- The Claimant challenged the credibility of witnesses opposing the 2014 will and denied allegations of misconduct or manipulation.
Defendants' Arguments
- The deceased did not know or approve the contents of the 2014 will due to his illiteracy and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will’s preparation.
- The Claimant exercised undue influence over the deceased to procure the 2014 will in her favour.
- The solicitor’s attendance notes and conduct were unreliable and possibly dishonest, casting doubt on the validity of the will.
- The dramatic change in testamentary dispositions between the 2012 and 2014 wills lacked credible explanation.
- The deceased’s literacy was severely limited, undermining his capacity to understand the will.
- The Claimant’s controlling and manipulative behaviour was evidenced by witness testimony and family dynamics.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Gill v Woodall [2011] Ch 380 |
Holistic approach to knowledge and approval of will; presumption of knowledge and approval can be rebutted by evidence. |
The court applied a one-stage holistic approach to assess if the 2014 will represented the deceased’s true intentions. |
| Fuller v Strum [2002] 1 WLR 1097 |
Strong presumption that a properly executed will, read over to a testator with capacity, represents their intentions. |
The court acknowledged this presumption but found it rebutted on the facts. |
| Fulton v Andrew (1875) LR 7 HL 448 |
Presumption of knowledge and approval when a competent testator has had the will read to him and executes it. |
The court considered this presumption but found clear evidence rebutting it. |
| Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280 |
Knowledge and approval requires the testator to understand and approve the choices made in the will. |
The court focused on whether the deceased understood and approved the 2014 will’s contents. |
| Wintle v Nye [1959] 1 WLR 285 |
Cross-examination on knowledge and approval can challenge veracity even without pleading fraud. |
The court allowed probing of witness credibility regarding the will’s validity. |
| Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 |
Undue influence requires proof that the testator’s free will was overborne by coercion or fraud. |
The court applied this high burden and found no undue influence in the present case. |
| Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 3250 |
Undue influence often proven by circumstantial evidence due to its secretive nature. |
The court considered circumstantial evidence but found it insufficient here. |
| Korab-Karpinski v Lucas-Gardiner [2007] WTLR 1655 |
Distinction between public personality and private vulnerability in undue influence cases. |
The court considered but rejected the argument that the deceased’s private persona made him susceptible. |
| Walker v Walker [2010] WTLR 1617 |
Undue influence can arise from coercion in private life despite public strength. |
The court acknowledged this principle but found it inapplicable in this case. |
| Chin v Chin [2019] EWHC 523 |
Undue influence and lack of knowledge and approval can co-exist, especially with language barriers. |
The court distinguished this case as the deceased could understand the 80/20 split. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed factual analysis, focusing on the deceased’s testamentary capacity, literacy, and the circumstances of the 2014 will’s preparation and execution. The court found the deceased to be a tough and astute businessman but with severe literacy limitations, supported by contemporaneous documents and handwriting evidence. The deceased’s illiteracy undermined the likelihood that he read or understood the 2014 will or related documents, including drafts and explanatory letters.
The court scrutinised the conduct of the solicitor responsible for the 2014 will, finding his attendance notes inconsistent, suspicious, and possibly dishonest. The solicitor’s failure to secure clear, contemporaneous instructions and to confirm the deceased’s approval of the radical change from the 2012 will weakened the Claimant’s case. The court found evidence that the solicitor and Claimant concealed the extent of their relationship and the Claimant’s involvement in the will-making process.
The court noted the dramatic shift in testamentary dispositions from the 2012 will to the 2014 will, which excluded the deceased’s son and grandchildren without credible explanation. The court rejected the Claimant’s justifications for the 80/20 split in her favour and found it more likely that the deceased did not know or approve this change.
The court found the Claimant to be a manipulative and risk-taking individual who likely exploited the deceased’s illiteracy and the solicitor’s conduct to effect the 2014 will. The Claimant’s presence at the will’s execution meeting was confirmed, but the will was not read out or explained in full to the deceased. The court preferred contemporaneous attendance notes over conflicting witness recollections.
Regarding undue influence, the court found no credible evidence that the deceased’s free will was overborne. The deceased maintained control over his affairs, socialised freely, and could have changed his will at any time. The alleged controlling behaviour by the Claimant was insufficient to establish coercion or undue influence in the legal sense. The court emphasised the high burden of proof required and found it unmet.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final ruling is as follows:
The 2014 will is declared invalid for want of knowledge and approval by the deceased.
The 2012 will is pronounced valid and is upheld in solemn form of law.
The Defendants’ claim of undue influence is dismissed. The court found no evidence that the deceased’s testamentary freedom was overborne by the Claimant. The direct effect is that the deceased’s estate will be distributed according to the 2012 will. No new legal precedent is established by this decision. The court also ordered that any consequential matters be addressed by further hearing if necessary.