Challenge To Charitable Legacy On The Grounds Of Knowledge & Approval

In previous blogs, reference to the personal representative (PR) effects of litigation on charities has been touched upon. Now more than ever the press are extremely interested in Will challenge cases. The background to them tends to make interesting reading as the cases essentially revolve around family breakdown in a very ‘day time television’ way. The PR effect of these cases on charities however, can be catastrophic as the charity in question can be easily portrayed by the press as opportunistic if they approach such litigation wrongly, which in turn can impact future fundraising activities.

One such case where things went badly for the charity is Gill v RPSCA.

Gill v RSPCA

Case background

In this case, Mr Gill and Mrs Gill were farmers. Mr Gill instructed solicitors to prepare mirror Wills for him and Mrs Gill leaving the entire residuary estate to the RSPCA. On its own, this may not seem strange but when set in the context that:

1. they had a daughter that at least Mrs Gill was on good terms with (if not both Mr and Mrs Gill) and that lived next door to them; and
2. the fact that Mrs Gill had been quite disparaging about the RSPCA during the course of her life,

such a legacy does raise an eye brow. The reason that the Wills made gave for disinheriting the daughter, Dr Gill, was that they felt that she had been well provided for by them for a long period of time. As with many traditional relationships, Mr Gill was a very domineering and opinionated man, whereas Mrs Gill was a sufferer of agoraphobia and panic disorder. Mr Gill predeceased Mrs Gill by seven years and accordingly the Will being considered in this case was Mrs Gill’s Will.

The primary evidence suggested that the Will was prepared by solicitors and that once prepared, the Wills were sent to Mr and Mrs Gill, who then subsequently attended the solicitor’s offices where the Wills were apparently read out to them and then executed.

Legal proceedings

At first instance, the Judge rejected an argument that the Will was invalid on the basis of lack of knowledge and approval of the content of the Will but found in favour of Dr Gill in respect of an argument in undue influence and proprietary estoppel (an argument very prevalent in farming inheritance disputes!).

The RSPCA appealed and Dr Gill cross appealed.

The judgment of Lord Neuberger MR focuses on the lack of knowledge and approval argument as, should there be a lack of knowledge and approval, the other arguments become irrelevant. His judgment confirms that as a matter of authority and common sense, the fact that a solicitor prepared a Will and that it was properly executed raises a very strong presumption that there was knowledge and approval of the content of the Will. He made it clear that from a policy perspective this is important as if the Courts too readily accept arguments about lack of knowledge and approval without strong evidence it would potentially derail a testator’s right to leave his/her assets to whomever he/she chooses. He however adopted a new approach to the issue of knowledge and approval by asking himself the following question:

• Whether those propounding the Will had discharged the burden of establishing that the testator knew and approved of the content of the Will?

Deployed at the trial was expert medical evidence that demonstrated that Mrs Gill, as a sufferer of agoraphobia, would have found it extremely difficult to concentrate and absorb information if she left the farm and/or met strangers and accordingly would have been unlikely to have understood the Will when it was read out to her. In light of this, Lord Neuberger MR found that the Will failed on the basis of lack of knowledge and approval and accordingly the RSPCA lost the case at both first instance and at appeal. As a result, this case generated a great deal of media attention at the time and this highlights the need to ensure that a measured commercial approach is adopted by charities when considering whether to litigate any case but specifically cases such as this.

One small consolation is that Lord Neuberger did state that:

“There may be a danger of this decision being seen as something of a green light to disappointed beneficiaries, and in particular to close relatives of a testatrix who have not benefited from her will, to challenge the will even where it has been read over to the testatrix, or to appeal a full and careful first instance decision upholding a will’s validity. It is therefore right to emphasise that the facts of this case are quite exceptional.”