In a recent case involving the estate of William Oliver, two claims were brought by his youngest child, Jane, and her older brother Kevin, which resulted in the invalidation of William’s 2015 will. This case offers important insights for legacy practitioners, especially regarding challenges to testamentary capacity and undue influence, even in instances where a will was professionally drafted and witnessed by a medical professional.
Background to the case
William Oliver passed away on 25 May 2018, leaving behind five living children. His 2009 will, executed prior to his wife’s death, divided his estate equally among his children. However, in 2015, William executed a new will that placed the entire estate into a Trust, with his eldest son, Rodney, as the sole Trustee. Rodney had full discretion in managing the estate, and none of the other children received direct inheritance under this will.
More than six years after William’s death, the estate had not been distributed, and none of the children had received any inheritance. This led to two significant legal claims.
The claims
Jane’s first claim challenged the validity of the 2015 will, seeking to admit the 2009 will to probate. She argued that William lacked the mental capacity to execute the 2015 will and was unduly influenced by Rodney, who had been living with him in the years leading up to its execution.
Jane cited the third and fourth limbs of the Banks v Goodfellow test for testamentary capacity, which require that a testator be aware of the people they would be expected to provide for and be free from any delusions that would affect their decisions. Jane contended that William’s cognitive problems, exacerbated by ill health, meant he saw everything through Rodney’s perspective, impairing his judgment about the needs of his other children.
In the alternative, Jane and Kevin also brought a second claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. They argued that the 2015 will did not provide reasonable financial provision for them as adult children. However, this claim relied on the validity of the 2015 will, so it would only arise if the first challenge was unsuccessful.
The court’s decision
The judge ruled in favour of Jane, determining that William did not have the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed the 2015 will. Specifically, the judge found that William’s cognitive issues prevented him from properly understanding and appreciating the needs of his children, and his judgment was so impaired by Rodney’s influence that it amounted to delusions of the mind. As a result, the third and fourth limbs of the Banks v Goodfellow test were not satisfied.
Alternatively, even if William had been deemed to have testamentary capacity, the judge concluded that the will was tainted by undue influence exerted by Rodney. This undue influence further invalidated the 2015 will, despite it being professionally drafted and witnessed by William’s GP, who had certified his capacity.
Ultimately, the judge declared the 2015 will invalid and granted probate on the 2009 will, meaning the Inheritance Act claims fell away. It is worth noting that Rodney did not actively defend the claim, so Jane’s arguments went unchallenged.
Key takeaways
This case underscores several important lessons:
- Testamentary Capacity and Influence – Even professionally drafted wills witnessed by medical professionals can be overturned if there is sufficient evidence that the testator lacked capacity or was subject to undue influence. Practitioners should always explore family dynamics and consider whether another party may have unduly influenced the deceased.
- Gathering Evidence – Evidence is crucial, particularly in cases where a will challenge arises years after the testator’s death. In this case, the claim was “stale,” having been brought six years after William’s death. Defendants should act swiftly to preserve key evidence, such as the will file, and obtain witness statements where possible.
- Challenging Wills – Charities thinking of challenging a will, even long after the testator’s death, should note that courts are willing to invalidate professionally prepared wills on grounds of capacity or undue influence if there is sufficient supporting evidence.
- Quick Action for Defendants – If a charity is named as a defendant in a will dispute, they should take early advice and move quickly to gather evidence and assess the claim’s merits, especially where there are concerns about potential undue influence or lack of capacity.
This case serves as a reminder that courts will scrutinise the circumstances surrounding the execution of wills, especially in cases involving vulnerable individuals or significant family tensions.
Written By
Get In Touch
Gaynor Lanceley is Head of Legacy Administration at Shakespeare Martineau.
A highly experienced Wills, Trusts and Estates solicitor, Gaynor is able to advise charities on all aspects of legacy administration, forecasting, budgeting and training. Outside of work Gaynor is a member of Solicitors for the Elderly (SFE) and Society of Trusts and Estates (STEP) accredited.
How We Can Help
Inheritance & Trusts Disputes
If you feel that a family member’s wishes have not been fulfilled, or you haven’t received what is rightfully yours, our specialist team can help you resolve your dispute, whether that is through mediation or negotiation, or court proceedings.
Charities
Leaving money to charity in your will can ensure your chosen charity beneficiaries reap the rewards of your hard work, while you benefit from the financial incentives too. We can advise you on the best way to structure and approach your charitable affairs.
Charity Legacy Management
We recognise the need for innovative, pragmatic support and advice regarding the legacy sector, and our team’s experience in estate administration and other contentious probate issues enables us to provide this.