Disputed Estates: Practical Lessons for Charities from MacDougall and Teixeira 

Author: Rosie Brain

For charities, disputed estates can present significant challenges. Whether concerns relate to a will, lifetime gifts, powers of attorney or arrangements that affect the value of an estate, identifying the right issue early can make a substantial difference to the outcome.

Two recent High Court decisions offer valuable lessons for charity legacy officers and trustees dealing with disputed estates. Both cases illustrate the importance of identifying the right legal grounds, preserving evidence early, and knowing when personal representatives should step in to protect estate assets.

Both cases highlight the importance of identifying the right legal grounds, preserving evidence early, and knowing when personal representatives should step in to protect estate assets.

Re MacDougall (deceased) / MacDougall v Thomas [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch) (“MacDougall”)

Background of the case

Jeanne MacDougall died in 2020 aged 91, leaving a substantial estate including rental properties and two family homes. She had two children: Gary and Sandra. Her 2011 will left practically everything to Sandra.

Gary challenged the 2011 will on grounds of undue influence, lack of knowledge and approval, lack of capacity, and mistake, seeking to uphold an earlier 2008 will which divided the estate more equally. He also challenged various lifetime gifts and transactions made by Jeanne to Sandra and her husband Philip, including property transfers and alleged misuse of funds under lasting powers of attorney.

The evidential picture was complicated. Jeanne had Alzheimer’s (diagnosed in 2012), yet no capacity assessment was undertaken when the 2011 will was prepared. The will was drafted by a tax adviser who kept no attendance notes, meaning there was little contemporaneous evidence. Sandra and Philip were heavily involved in Jeanne’s finances, and she lived with them. Some transactions had been kept secret from Gary and Jeanne’s accountant.

What was the decision?

Despite all this, the judge, Nicola Rushton KC upheld the 2011 will. She said that there was a key requirement when challenging a will for undue influence – evidence of coercion which amounts to pressure that overpowers the testator’s free will. Mere persuasion, influence or dependency is not enough. Sandra and Philip’s conduct did not cross that line.

However, the lifetime transactions were a different story. For these, the test is whether there was a relationship of trust and confidence plus a transaction that calls for explanation. Several lifetime gifts and dealings were set aside for undue influence, lack of capacity, or breach of attorney duties. Property transfers were reversed, compensation was ordered, and an account was ordered to be taken due to the misuse of Jeanne’s bank account.

The court also confirmed it has no power to rescind a will for mistake – such claims would undermine established probate principles and open the floodgates to similar claims.

Key takeaways from MacDougall:

• Will challenges face a high bar. Undue influence requires coercion, not just influence or dependency. Capacity and knowledge/approval each require targeted evidence — medical records, contemporaneous notes, and proof focused on the date of execution.
• Lifetime transactions are judged differently. A will may be upheld whilst lifetime gifts or attorney dealings are set aside on similar facts. These claims should not be treated as a fallback — they require distinct evidence and can succeed independently.
• For charities: encourage donors to use solicitors or regulated will writers who can properly assess capacity and keep detailed attendance notes. The will writer in this case kept little records and so opened the matter up to challenge. Well-documented wills are harder to challenge and will therefore help protect your charitable legacy.

Teixeira v Moaven [2026] EWHC 1215 (Ch) (“Teixeira”)

Background of the case

This case concerned sham trusts — documents that look like trusts but were never genuinely intended to operate as such.

The deceased, Abbas Moaven, executed four declarations of trust over properties he solely owned, just one month before his death. The declarations purported to confirm that he, his brother Amir, and their mother each held a one-third beneficial interest in the various properties. If valid, the estate would own only a third of each property — significantly reducing its value.

The deceased’s wife, Gabriela, challenged the declarations and sought removal of the original executors (including Amir, who stood to benefit). Independent personal representatives were appointed, and by trial’s end they actively supported Gabriela’s position that the declarations were shams.

What was the decision?

Master Bowles hearing the case found that the four declarations were all shams — and that the deceased never intended to create or confirm real beneficial interests, but to disguise the true value of the estate.

Critically, the court rejected the argument that personal representatives must remain neutral. Where the dispute determines what belongs to the estate – and affects its solvency and proper administration – personal representatives may need to take an active stance. That said, unnecessary intervention risks adverse costs orders.

Key takeaways from Teixeira:

• Documents will be tested against reality. If a declaration of trust does not reflect true ownership, or was used to disguise estate value, the court may declare it a sham with no legal effect.
• PR neutrality has limits. Where estate assets are at stake, personal representatives may need to investigate and act — not just watch from the sidelines.
• For charities: if you suspect assets have been improperly removed from an estate, they can be challenged even if the documents look legitimate at face value. Do not assume PRs must remain passive — they may be best placed to act on behalf of the estate. Seek advice; active steps may be both appropriate and necessary.

Key lessons for charities

Act early. Preserve evidence. Focus on the claim the evidence can actually prove. Suspicion may justify investigation, but success depends on evidence – contemporaneous records, medical evidence, professional files, and a clear explanation of how the legal test is met.

When concerns arise, early action can help preserve key records, identify potential claims and avoid unnecessary delay. Charity legacy officers and trustees should consider seeking advice promptly where there are questions about capacity, undue influence, attorney misconduct, disputed ownership of assets or the conduct of personal representatives.

The courts will ultimately decide cases on the evidence available. The earlier issues are identified and investigated, the better placed charities will be to protect their interests and honour the intentions of those who chose to leave them a gift.

Contact us

If you have questions about a disputed estate affecting a legacy to your charity, or need advice on contentious probate matters, please contact the trusts, estates and disputes team. We can advise on your charity’s options and help protect your interests.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to address the circumstances of any individual or entity, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for specific advice from a qualified solicitor. The information reflects the legal position as at the date specified and may be subject to change. If you require advice on a specific matter, please contact us directly.