High court win on Will validity challenge means the claimants’ need not rely on their backup Inheritance Act claims
In the recent (September 2024) case of Oliver & Oliver V Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews gave judgment in favour of the claimants on an interesting and unusual case involving both a Will validity dispute and also a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975.
William Oliver was born in 1932 and died in 2018. He was predeceased by his wife June, and left behind five living children, one other having sadly also predeceased.
The 2015 will made by the late William Oliver was ultimately declared invalid on several grounds and the court granted probate in solemn form to an earlier 2009 will.
The 2015 will benefitted Rodney, the eldest child of William, and excluded his four other living children. The 2009 will was a mirror will with that of William’s wife June. After providing that the survivor of the two of them should be the sole beneficiary, it provided that in the event of the prior death of the other spouse, the entire estate should be split equally between the five children- Rodney, Andrew, Kevin, Gillian and Jane.
Rodney declined to participate in the proceedings. He even returned letters from the claimants’ solicitors having marked them “This address does not accept unsolicited junk mail. Cease and desist. All mailings recorded. Further mailings will be harassment.”
The 2015 will was found invalid on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Therefore the 1975 Act claims fell away as the Claimants no longer needed their backup claims.
The court was satisfied that “[128]. William was so under Rodney’s thumb, and so in fear of Rodney’s leaving him, by the time that he made the will, that he could not have done otherwise than go along with Rodney’s wishes.”
Rodney had significant animosity towards his brothers and blamed them for the closure of the family business, and was (wrongly) convinced, even after detailed explanations from the company accountant, that the proceeds of sale of business assets had been misapplied rather than used in settling genuine company debts.
Judge Matthews found that Rodney “[44]….has an obsessive personality. He focuses on a single route and outcome in what he does. He thinks he is different from other people. He believes that his views are objectively correct, and is unable to accept any other point of view but his own” and he was described as believing in “conspiracy theories”. There was a safeguarding alert in place when William was hospitalised in 2018 on the basis that a “relative” (unnamed) was giving hydrogen peroxide and urine to William to drink “[89]. On 22 April, Rodney was arrested by police after admitting that he had administered hydrogen peroxide to William, and injected urine into William’s catheter. As a result he was barred from the hospital.”
Interestingly, the invalid will had been drafted with the involvement of an independent professional. Mr Stephen Haggett, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal executives of H&C Lawyers in Tavistock, a firm of licensed conveyancers and will writers. Mr Haggett concluded after meeting with William – first of all accompanied by Rodney and later unaccompanied – that William had testamentary capacity. He also followed the ‘Golden Rule’ by additionally securing an opinion on testamentary capacity from William’s GP. That assessment letter confirmed the GP’s opinion that William had testamentary capacity.
Ultimately the evidence of a retrospective capacity assessment by medical expert Dr Andrew Barker, consultant in old age Psychiatry was preferred by the court. The judge noted of the brief GP involvement, “[75.] However, there was no evidence of any cognitive assessment having been undertaken, such as a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) or Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE), and I find that none was. Nor was there any evidence of how William assessed the allegations against Andrew and Kevin, or how he justified excluding Gillian and Jane (against whom no allegations had been made) from benefit.” Also that the GP’s approval under section 12 of the Mental Health Act “[78.].. as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder, for the purpose of making a medical recommendation for the compulsory admission of a patient under Part II of that Act. That is not, of course, experience in relation to testamentary capacity, and the deterioration of mental capacity over time, such as an old-age psychiatrist deals with.”
The two takeaway points from this case:
- Rodney’s failure to engage at all in the Will validity court case process will not have helped his cause at all.
- A Will written by a professional, and with a GP letter backing it up was ultimately held to be invalid when the case was fully scrutinised by the court. Even strong initial evidence of Will validity can be successfully challenged in the right case.
Source: BAILII