While you might think similar facts would result in similar decisions in the courts, the two recent cases of Copley v Winter and Rea v Rea show that the details matter when judges are considering whether a will should be set aside for undue influence.
This article delves into these two cases, highlighting how the detail can affect the decisions of very similar cases in court.
The deceased had kept horses on a plot of land at Church Lane, which had significant development potential. The deceased made a will in January 2017 leaving this land to the defendant who was a friend. The deceased made a later will in January 2019 leaving the land to the claimant, the granddaughter of the deceased's long-term partner.
The deceased had been suffering with terminal cancer and had recently lost her partner when making the 2019 will. The 2019 will expressed the wish, but did not impose any obligation, that the claimant would offer the land at its market value to the defendant if the claimant wanted to sell it.
The claimant brought an action to uphold the validity of the 2019 will but the defendant challenged it and at trial relied on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. HHJ Pearce found the capacity argument was weak and easily dismissed. On undue influence the judge noted the deceased's diminishing health and the involvement of the claimant in the will-making process. The judge also found that the claimant had lied during their evidence.
However, despite these considerations all pointing in favour of undue influence, the judge concluded that it was more likely that the deceased had made the change to her will due to her belief that the claimant would care for the horses if they inherited the land than the 2019 will was made by reason of undue influence.
The deceased had made a will in 1986 sharing her estate equally between her three sons (the defendants) and daughter (the claimant). However in December 2015 she updated her will, opting to leave her house, forming the bulk of her estate, to her daughter. The will expressly excluded the sons from receiving a share in anything other than the residue and directed the executors to defend any claims they may bring for more. The alleged justification for the changes was that the daughter had taken care of the deceased for years, while the sons had not looked after her.
The judge concluded that the 2015 will was made by reason of undue influence, citing factors including frailty of the testator, her dependency on the claimant in caring for her, the forceful nature of the claimant and her involvement in the will-making process. The judge also noted the significant changes to the terms of the wills. The judge reached this conclusion even though the deceased signed her 2015 will in the presence of a solicitor as well as a GP.
The decisions emphasise that the details of each case will be examined carefully by the courts. Both of these claimants were involved in the will-making process - both were found by the judge to be less than wholly reliable as witnesses and both claimants were carers for an elderly and frail deceased. Ultimately the cases turned on the circumstantial evidence and the nuances of the cases.
Both cases also cited the now widely recognised principle that the facts must be more than merely consistent with a hypothesis of undue influence – they must be ‘inconsistent with any other hypothesis’ so whatever the facts, the bar remains high.
For further information, please contact the wills and inheritance disputes team.
