Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch)

Joss Knight of our Wills & Trusts team was instructed by Wolferstans LLP to act for the successful claimant in Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) before HHJ Matthews in which the last will of the claimant’s late father was declared invalid.

The claim is a rare example of a will being overturned on the grounds of both undue influence and a lack of testamentary capacity. Judgment was handed down on 9 September 2024 and can be found here.

Background

William Oliver had five surviving children. He and his wife June executed mirror wills in 1985 and 2009 which (in broad terms) divided their estate equally between the siblings following their death. June passed away in 2014.

In 2015, William signed a new will settling his entire estate on trust, with his eldest son Rodney (the defendant) as executor, trustee and sole beneficiary.

Following William’s death in 2018, his daughter Jane issued a claim against Rodney seeking a declaration that the 2015 will was invalid on the grounds William lacked testamentary capacity at the time it was executed and alternatively, that it was the product of undue influence exerted by Rodney against their father. The other siblings gave evidence in support of Jane’s claim.

Decision

The 2015 will had been professionally prepared. William had given lengthy instructions (recorded in a transcript) and his GP had certified at the time that he had testamentary capacity.

Nevertheless, HHJ Matthews found that William failed the third and fourth limbs of the Banks v Goodfellow test. His false beliefs about wrongdoing on the part of his two other sons, and his complete dependence on Rodney, meant he was not able to comprehend the claims on his estate from any of his children bar Rodney.

Moreover, those false beliefs were of a type and nature that they constituted delusions – brought on by a combination of Rodney’s statements and William’s mental disorder – which had a direct effect on the dispositions within the 2015 will. As such, he lacked testamentary capacity.

However, even if he had had capacity, Rodney’s dominance and control over his father was so complete that William could not have done otherwise than go along with Rodney’s demands. The will was therefore invalid on the grounds of undue influence.

The 2009 will (missing and believed to be in Rodney’s possession) was reconstituted under r.54 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 and declared to be William’s last true will.

A separate claim by Jane and her brother Kevin under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 fell away as a result of the success in the will validity claim.

Guidance for practitioners

Successful undue influence claims are rare. Whilst the facts here were particularly extreme (Rodney’s behaviour culminated in being arrested and barred from the hospital shortly before William passed away) the decision demonstrates that establishing dominance over the deceased’s decision-making generally – even if not directly connected to the production of the will and even when some of those instances post-date the will under scrutiny – can help to establish undue influence in relation to the will itself.

Similarly, capacity battles too often descend into simplistic arguments over dementia diagnoses, cognitive assessments and the testator’s age. This decision underscores the importance of a rigorous consideration of the Banks v Goodfellow criteria. It demonstrates that in the appropriate circumstances, a testator can lack capacity even when they have no dementia diagnosis and are capable of giving relatively detailed, lengthy instructions to a will-writer.

Joss is regularly instructed in a wide variety of wills, probate and estates matters. He has particular expertise in claims where the validity of the will is disputed, and claims for an interest in property on the basis of proprietary estoppel, resulting trust or constructive trust. Read more here.