In the Chancery Division case, the Court was faced with two competing claims over the Deceased’s estate: a challenge to the validity of a 2015 Will; and an alternative proprietary estoppel case. The Claimant, who served as the Deceased’s long-term live-in carer, sought to overturn the 2015 Will and reinstate the 2012 Will naming her as executor and principal beneficiary.
The Claimant alleged that the second Defendant, the sole beneficiary under the 2015 Will, had manipulated the Deceased into revoking the earlier testament. The Court’s task was to decide whether undue influence and fraudulent calumny invalidated the 2015 Will.
Facts
- The Claimant lived with and cared for the Deceased for many years and was the appointed executor of the November 2012 Will.
- The February 2015 Will appointed the second Defendant as sole beneficiary and was drafted by a non-solicitor Will-writing service under the second Defendant’s direction.
- The Deceased suffered from severe anxiety, physical frailty, and emotional dependence on the second Defendant, who had systematically isolated her and spread false rumours about the Claimant.
- The Claimant invested over £80,000 in improving the Deceased’s home, based on the Deceased’s promise that the property would pass to the Claimant upon her death.
- The second Defendant offered no defence or explanation and did not participate in Court proceedings.
The Court’s analysis
The judge broke the analysis into three core issues:
1. Testamentary capacity
-
- Medical records showed the Deceased understood her estate and its distribution when she executed the 2015 Will.
2. Knowledge and approval
Instructions to draft the Will were clear, but no evidence existed about the signing ceremony itself.
3. Undue influence and fraudulent calumny
- The second Defendant exploited the Deceased’s vulnerabilities, isolated her from friends and advisers, and made false allegations about the Claimant.
- These dishonest tactics skewed the Deceased’s testamentary intentions, vitiating the 2015 Will.
Given the compelling circumstantial evidence of coercion and deception, the Court deemed the 2015 Will invalid.
The judgment
- The grant of probate on the 2015 Will was revoked.
- The 2012 Will was reinstated, restoring the Claimant as executor and primary beneficiary.
- The proprietary estoppel claim was not decided, as the Court found it unnecessary once the 2015 Will was invalidated.
Comment
This decision underlines two critical takeaways for practitioners and laypersons alike:
- Vigilance against undue influence is vital when a vulnerable testator relies heavily on a single adviser or companion; and
- Fraudulent calumny—a Will-contesting tool less commonly invoked—can effectively challenge testamentary dispositions grounded in dishonesty and manipulation.
This case serves as a reminder that the Courts will look beyond formalities to safeguard a testator’s true intentions.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is an Associate in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, don’t hesitate to get in touch with Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us