Invalid Will Despite Professional Drafting: Lessons from Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026]

In the recent case of Ginger and others v Robert Mickleburgh and others [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch), a will was declared invalid even though it was prepared by a professional. The experienced paralegal who took instructions from the testator did not:- (1) interrogate his motivations for excluding his daughters; (2) make detailed recordings about his capacity; or (3) obtain a formal medical assessment of his capacity despite knowing that he had been sectioned and was on antipsychotic medication.

Ginger and others v Robert Mickleburgh and others [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch)

Background

Michael Gwilliam (Michael) died in February 2022 with the one-and-only will dated 3 December 2014 (Will) giving half of his estate to his sister (i.e. the 2^nd Defendant) and his ex-partner (i.e. the 3^rd Defendant), 25% of his estate to his three nephews (including the 1^st Defendant) and 25% of his estate to his four daughters.

Michael always insisted that he did not want to make a will as his estate would go to his daughters who he was close to. In late 2013, he began behaving erratically, perceiving harassment late at night from his neighbours. The daughters engaged mental health services and Michael was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 for two weeks in February 2014.

Michael continued to perceive harassment from unknown individuals late at night and accused his daughters of conspiring to lock him up in order to control his life and assets. He was encouraged in these beliefs by the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants, who disparaged the daughters and drove him to the solicitors to make the Will.

The daughters argued that the Will was invalid as:- (1) Michael was suffering from delusions or a disturbance of the mind at that time that caused him to act adversely to them; and (2) alternatively, the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants procured fraudulent calumny.

The Defendants defended the claim arguing that Michael was not delusional and was in fact harassed.

Decision

The Court found the Will to be invalid on the ground that Michael lacked testamentary capacity at the time it was made. He was suffering from insane delusions or a disorder of the mind arising from schizophrenia.

The alternative claim of fraudulent calumny did not succeed despite sufficient evidence that the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants were encouraging Michael’s delusions and were disparaging his daughters. The Court was not convinced that they knew or were reckless as to what they were telling Michael was false – they believed that Michael was being harassed and the daughters were trying to have Michael sectioned for their own financial gain.