Copley v Winter

Factual and Procedural Background

This claim concerns the validity of the last will of Elaine, who died in 2019. Elaine had lived for over 50 years with Brenda, who predeceased her in 2018. Elaine owned a house known as The Rowans and adjoining land known as the Havercroft land, comprising two parcels adjacent to Church Lane and Lund Hill Lane. Over the years, Elaine executed several wills, notably in 2011, 2017, and a final will in January 2019. The 2019 Will differed significantly from the 2017 Will in that it gave the Church Lane land outright to the Claimant, rather than to the Defendant as before, but with a wish that the Claimant offer it to the Defendant at market value if sold.

The Claimant initiated proceedings in 2021 seeking validation of the 2019 Will, which the Defendant contested, arguing that the 2019 Will was invalid and that the 2017 Will should stand. The trial was held in April 2023, with evidence heard from multiple witnesses including the Claimant, the Defendant, solicitors involved, care home staff, and family members. Judgment was reserved and subsequently handed down in July 2023.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Elaine had testamentary capacity at the time of executing the 2019 Will.
2. Whether Elaine had knowledge and approval of the 2019 Will (this issue was not pursued).
3. Whether the 2019 Will was procured by undue influence exerted by the Claimant.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• Elaine lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 2019 Will, particularly due to possible influence of Oramorph medication taken on the day of execution.
• The 2019 Will was procured by undue influence from the Claimant, who allegedly pressured Elaine to change her will in her favour.
• The Defendant contended that Elaine had a settled intention to leave the Church Lane land to him, consistent with earlier wills, and that the change in the 2019 Will was inconsistent with Elaine’s true wishes.
• The Defendant relied on circumstantial evidence including an alleged argument between the Claimant and Elaine, changes in Elaine’s attitude towards the Defendant, and the Claimant’s control over the will-making process.

Claimant's Arguments

• Elaine had testamentary capacity when executing the 2019 Will, supported by solicitor evidence and medical assessments.
• The 2019 Will reflected Elaine’s true wishes, particularly her desire for a simpler disposition of the Church Lane land to secure care for her horses.
• The Claimant denied exerting undue influence and contended that the Defendant’s allegations were unsupported and speculative.
• The Claimant emphasized the evidence of the solicitor who took instructions and the certificate provider, who both found Elaine capable and acting freely.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a thorough review of the evidence, focusing on the two main contested issues: testamentary capacity and undue influence.

Regarding testamentary capacity, the court applied the Banks v Goodfellow test and the burden of proof framework from Key v Key. The Defendant’s primary argument was that Elaine lacked capacity due to Oramorph medication administered on the day the will was signed. The court found the medical records and drug administration charts consistent with Oramorph being prescribed in January 2019 but not administered until February 2019, thus rejecting the Defendant’s claim of impairment from medication at the time of execution. The court also noted the solicitor’s detailed involvement and found no evidence of incapacity during the will execution meeting, despite some criticisms of the solicitor’s note-taking and questioning style.

On undue influence, the court accepted that proving such influence is difficult and often relies on circumstantial evidence. The Defendant relied heavily on an incident described by a witness where the Claimant allegedly pressured Elaine to change her will by threatening to withhold care for the horses. The court found the Claimant had lied about denying this incident, which undermined her credibility. However, the court also weighed factors supporting Elaine’s free will, including her prior careful consideration of wills, medical assessments of capacity, and the solicitor’s evidence that Elaine appeared to act independently and understandingly at the time of execution.

The court found the evidence finely balanced on undue influence but ultimately accepted the solicitor’s evidence and concluded it was more probable than not that Elaine acted as a free agent. The court rejected the suggestion that Elaine’s will change was irrational, noting the longstanding use of both parcels of land for horses and the desire for a simpler testamentary disposition.

The court critically assessed witness credibility, finding the Claimant’s evidence to be partially unreliable due to motive and inconsistencies, while finding other witnesses generally plausible, though some were noted to be impressionistic or partial. The court also rejected some evidence as unreliable or inconsistent with contemporaneous records.

Holding and Implications

The court UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE 2019 WILL, holding that Elaine had testamentary capacity at the time of execution and that the will was not procured by undue influence.

The Defendant’s counterclaim to invalidate the 2019 Will was dismissed. The Claimant is entitled to the relief sought, affirming her inheritance under the 2019 Will.

No broader legal precedent was established; the decision rests on the specific facts and evidence of this case. The ruling clarifies the application of established principles on testamentary capacity and undue influence in the context of contested wills involving vulnerable testators and family disputes.