The Shadow of Delusion – Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026]

19 March, 2026 3 minutes reading time

Testamentary Capacity & Mental Illness

The recent ruling in Ginger & Ors v Mickleburgh & Ors [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch) demonstrates that even a professionally drafted will can be challenged on the grounds of testamentary capacity. Decided in January 2026, this lengthy dispute emphasises the importance of applying the ‘Golden Rule’ and highlights the need for strict safeguards when drafting a will for older or vulnerable individuals.

Background to the Case

The dispute involved the estate of Michael Gwilliam, who died in February 2022. For most of his life, Michael was close to his four daughters and intended for them to inherit his estate. However, in 2014, Michael’s mental health deteriorated. He was diagnosed with late-onset schizophrenia, specifically persistent delusional disorder, and was briefly detained under the Mental Health Act after an incident involving an air rifle. After his discharge, he became convinced, without any evidence, that his daughters were conspiring to have him sectioned and were attempting to steal his property.

Encouraged by his sister and a companion (the Defendants in the case), who reinforced these paranoid beliefs, Michael drew up a will in December 2014. This document was a radical departure from his previous intentions. It left only 25% of the estate to his daughters and the remainder to the defendants who had validated his delusions.

The Legal Challenge

The daughters challenged the will on two primary grounds: 

1. Lack of Testamentary Capacity. Mr Gwilliam’s daughters argued that because Michael was suffering from ‘insane delusions’, this distorted his sense of right and prevented him from properly considering their claims.

2. Fraudulent Calumny. The daughters alleged that the Defendants had poisoned Michael’s mind by making false representations about them.

The Decision

HHJ Blohm KC declared the 2014 will to be invalid. Although Michael knew he was making a will and understood the value of his estate, he failed the Banks v Goodfellow (1870) test (a legal test for capacity). His mental illness had ‘poisoned’ his view of his family.

The judge found that Michael’s beliefs about his daughters were fixed, irrational, and delusional. Because these delusions directly caused him to exclude his children, the will was set aside. Michael was declared to have died intestate. Notably, the claim of fraudulent calumny failed because the defendants genuinely believed their own false claims. This proves that honestly held misinformation is a different legal beast than deliberate fraud.

Wider Implications

This decision is a cautionary tale for legal practitioners and families. The court gave the drafting practitioner’s evidence little weight. This was because they relied on a basic checklist rather than a deep probe into the testator’s motivations. Practitioners must be the first line of defence for older and vulnerable clients.

The ruling makes the “Golden Rule” vital when a client suddenly changes their mind or expresses hostility toward their family. In these cases, a medical assessment is essential. It confirms that decisions are the client’s own and not driven by a mental disorder. We must provide a safe, private space where vulnerable individuals can speak freely without outside pressure. Ultimately, protecting a client’s interests is more than a “tick-box” exercise. It requires legal and medical professionals to work together to ensure final wishes are genuine.

Our Advice

Having a doctor assess an older person’s capacity to make a Will can be an uncomfortable but necessary conversation. While it doesn’t guarantee the Will won’t be challenged, it greatly weakens a claimant’s case if such medical evidence is available. Please don’t hesitate to contact us for more information or advice. 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.

Partnerships & Accreditations