0115 964 7740 - law@curtisparkinson.com


Lack of Capacity and Undue Influence in Oliver v Oliver
5 December, 2024 5 minutes reading time
Family Feud Leads to Overturned Will
A recent decision in the High Court case, Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch), highlights the complexities of inheritance disputes, the critical importance of testamentary capacity, and the absence of undue influence, even when a solicitor drafts a Will and a medical professional witnesses it.
Background of the Case
The case centred on the estate of the late William Oliver, who had made three wills during his lifetime. Two of his five children, Jane and Kevin, made competing claims.
William and his wife, June, made mirror Wills in 1985 and 2009, broadly dividing their estate equally between their five children. June passed away in 2014. However, in 2015, William made a new Will that changed this distribution.
This new Will placed the entire estate into a trust and appointed his eldest son, Rodney, as the sole trustee. Rodney had complete discretion in managing the estate, and the other children did not receive any direct inheritance under this Will. A solicitor drafted this new Will, and a medical professional witnessed it.
More than six years after William’s death, the executors had not distributed the estate, and none of the children had received an inheritance. This inaction led to two significant legal claims.
The Claims
Jane made the first claim. She challenged the validity of the 2015 Will and argued that the executors should use the 2009 Will to apply for probate. She claimed that William lacked the mental capacity to execute the 2015 Will and that Rodney, her eldest brother who had been living with him in the intervening years, unduly influenced him.
Jane’s argument was based on two elements of the Banks v Goodfellow test for testamentary capacity. Essentially, a person making a Will must know who their dependents are and know the individuals they are morally or legally obligated to include as beneficiaries. Jane maintained that her father’s cognitive issues, which were exacerbated by his ill health, distorted his perspective, impairing his judgment regarding the needs of his other children.
The second claim involved Jane and her brother, Kevin. Their claim was brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. They argued that the 2015 Will did not make reasonable financial provision for them as adult children. However, this claim relied on the 2015 Will being held valid, so it would only come into play if their first challenge were unsuccessful.
The Court’s Decision
The High Court ruled in favour of Jane and invalidated the 2015 Will. It is worth noting that Rodney did not actively defend the claim, so Jane’s arguments went unchallenged. The judge’s decision was reached without any counter-arguments from Rodney, who did not engage in the proceedings by defending the claim against the validity of the 2015 Will. This lack of defence likely significantly affected the case’s outcome.
The judge determined that despite the seemingly robust process of drafting and witnessing the will, sufficient evidence suggested William Oliver did not fully understand its contents and the implications of his actions. The court also found that Rodney played a significant role in creating the 2015 Will, raising concerns about the possibility of undue influence.
Ultimately, declaring the 2015 Will invalid, the judge granted probate on the 2009 Will: this nullified Jane and Kevin’s Inheritance Act claim.
Why is this case important?
Oliver v Oliver highlights several crucial points regarding contested Wills:
1. Testamentary Capacity
Even with professional drafting and witnessing, a will can be challenged if the person making it lacks the mental capacity to do so. This case emphasises the need to thoroughly assess testamentary capacity, especially when cognitive decline is a concern.
2. Undue Influence
The court’s finding of undue influence demonstrates that such pressure need not be overt or forceful. Subtle manipulation or coercion can invalidate a Will, particularly when someone targets a vulnerable individual.
3. Medical Evidence
Expert medical testimony was pivotal in this case. If you have concerns about a loved one’s capacity to make or change a will, seeking professional medical advice and documentation is essential.
4. Uncontested Claims
The fact that Rodney did not contest the claim highlights the importance of actively participating in legal proceedings. Had Rodney presented a defence, the outcome might have been different. This underscores the need for legal representation and active engagement in inheritance disputes.
5. Timing
It is advisable to seek professional advice early, gather evidence, and promptly assess the merits of a claim. In this case, Jane and Kevin brought their claims six years after William’s death, which complicated evidence and witness gathering and ultimately made the process more time-consuming and costly.
Our Advice
Oliver v Oliver is a stark reminder of the importance of careful estate planning. To minimise the risk of disputes and ensure your executors follow your wishes, you should:
- Regularly review and update your Will, as changes in your circumstances may warrant amendments.
- Keep a detailed record of your assets, including any discussions regarding your Will.
- Choose your executors carefully. Appoint trustworthy individuals who will act according to your wishes.
Don’t leave your loved ones vulnerable to Will disputes. Our specialist lawyers have years of experience advising clients about inheritance disputes, wills, trusts and probate. If you have concerns about a Will’s validity or believe undue influence may have been involved, please contact us. We’re here to help.
Please note that all views, comments or opinions expressed are for information only and do not constitute and should not be interpreted as being comprehensive or as giving legal advice. No one should seek to rely or act upon, or refrain from acting upon, the views, comments or opinions expressed herein without first obtaining specialist, professional or independent advice. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, Curtis Parkinson cannot be held liable for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies.