A battle of Wills

The Court of Appeal recently upheld the High Court decision that a Will that left a £2.4 million farm to the RSPCA was invalid. This long awaited judgment follows the original decision made in February 2010 and has implications for individuals and charities that are contesting or defending the validity of a Will.

Mr and Mrs Gill were farmers. Dr Christine Gill was their only child. In April 1993 Mr and Mrs Gill both signed Wills that left everything to each other and then to the RSPCA. The Wills included a note that their daughter had been adequately provided for during their lifetimes and therefore they had not made provision for her in their Wills.

Dr Gill and her husband spent significant time over many years helping Mr and Mrs Gill on the farm. Dr Gill did not pursue her career as an academic for this reason. She and her husband also bought the property next to the farm even though it was 50 miles from where they both worked so that they were close her parents.

In Court it was found that Mrs Gill suffered from agoraphobia. This meant she was scared of being in public places or crowds and she suffered from anxiety attacks. She rarely left the farm. If she did leave it was only with Mr Gill or her daughter. It was also put forward in evidence that Mrs Gill was also afraid of her husband. It was said that he was domineering and easily lost his temper.

Mr Gill died in 1999 and his Estate passed to Mrs Gill. Mrs Gill died in August 2006 and her Estate was left to the RSPCA according to her Will. Dr Gill challenged this Will.

The High Court decided that Mrs Gill's Will was not valid because it did not represent her true wishes. Her husband had overpowered Mrs Gill into making it. Therefore the Court held that the Estate would pass to her daughter instead of the RSPCA. The RSPCA appealed this decision.

Interestingly the Court of Appeal agreed that Mrs Gill's Will was not valid but for a different reason. This Court decided that Mrs Gill had not understood that she was benefiting the RSPCA in her Will to the exclusion of her daughter. She had not known what she was signing. 

Not a 'green light' for disappointed beneficiaries

Despite agreeing that the Will should be overturned the Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger said the facts of this case are "exceptional" and that it should not be seen as a "green light" for disappointed beneficiaries to contest Wills.

Lord Neuberger's judgment upholds the longstanding principle in English law that an individual should be free to dispose of their property in their Will as they wish. In this country we do not have forced heirship.

An exception to this principle is provided by legislation that provides that a disappointed party can make a claim if they consider that the Estate has not reasonably provided for them. Such a claim is open only to a limited number of "eligible claimants" the most common of which is the spouse of the deceased.

Increase in challenges to Wills

There has been a notable increase in the number of Wills that are challenged in recent years, with the number of contested Wills cases reaching the High Court increasing by 38% in 2009 compared to the previous year. As the vast majority of cases settle well before a final court hearing it is impossible to know how many disputes there really are but the trend is clearly upwards.

This increase in challenges to Wills is due to various reasons. There is greater awareness of the fact that if certain individuals, such as a spouse, cohabitee or dependant, are not adequately provided for in the deceased's Will then they may be able to bring a claim against the Estate for financial provision.

Lack of mental capacity to make a valid Will is one of the most common reasons to challenge a Will. As we live longer illnesses associated with old age such as dementia affect a person's mental capacity to make a valid Will. Such illnesses can also make people vulnerable to undue pressure to change their Will, perhaps from a carer or person who befriended the deceased in their later years.

Increased awareness of challenges to Wills due to cases like Gill v RSPCA has also made litigation more acceptable. If people think that something is not quite right they are more likely now to seek legal advice to ascertain whether there are any legal reasons to contest the validity of a Will.

Tony Cockayne is head of our Disputed Wills and Trusts Team and has acted in a number of high profile and reported cases in this area. For further information, contact Tony at tony.cockayne@michelmores.com or on 01392 687601.