Wilkinson and Others v Hicken [2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch)
Background
The deceased, who was a property tycoon, died in 2018 with a Will (2018 Will) dated 15 February 2018. He had three children, a stepson, and three grandchildren when he died.
In 1979, the deceased was charged with and pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder his wife Mary. He was then made the subject of a Hospital Order for his mental disorder. Upon his release from the hospital, he rebuilt his career and gathered a fortune of around £6 million. He tried to reconcile with his family but was not successful.
Under the 2018 Will, the deceased gave £5,000.00 to each of his children but nothing to any of his grandchildren. He gave some £2 million to his extended family members, friends, assistants, associates, and carers totalling. The residuary estate, estimated at £4 million, was left to the Norman Gill Charitable Trust, which he established in September 1992 to benefit the people of the city and county of Leicester.
The Defendant, who is the deceased’s eldest child, challenged the validity of the 2018 Will alleging that the deceased “suffered a personality disorder diagnosed in 1979 which poisoned the natural affection for his children and grandchildren” based on the fact that he was terminally ill when he made the 2018 Will.
Decision
The Court found the 2018 Will valid since:
- Suffering from a personality disorder, like lacking concern for the feelings of the deceased’s family, did not necessarily entail loss of testamentary capacity as it would be unusual; and
According to the expert witness, personality disorders were ‘enduring characteristics, which once established, usually in early adult life, persist throughout life’. There was no evidence showing that the deceased’s personality changed over the years and the Defendant never suggested that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the Will before the 2018 Will.
- Disinheriting the children and grandchildren might be regarded as unfair but it was not irrational.
It reflected the undisputed turbulent relationship between the deceased and his children. It appeared that the deceased would financially benefit his children but it came at a price of his need of his children to do what he expected them to do. The moment he knew that his children were not able to fulfil his need, he pursued an alternative plan in his usual vigorous way.
Comment
It is clear from this case that:
- (1) personality disorder itself is not sufficient to prove loss of testamentary capacity; and
- (2) there is no legal requirement of the terms of a Will being fair and as long as the Will reflects the deceased’s intention at the time of execution, the Will shall remain valid.
How can Nelsons help
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.