References: [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mann J
Ratio: Brothers contested their late mother’s will, one saying that the later one was made when she lacked capacity and was under the undue influence of the other.
Held: The evidence of one brother that he had taken no significant part in the preparation of the later will was shown to be false by the amendments in his handwriting to the draft. There was no irrationality on the face of the will so as to remove the presumption that she had capacity, and indeed the evidence supported that. The evidence was that she understood knew what she was doing and its effect, and therefore. It could not be criticised a being executed with want of knowledge and approval.
As to undue influence: ‘It will be a common feature of a large number of undue influence cases that there is no direct evidence of the application of influence. It is of the nature of undue influence that it goes on when no-one is looking. That does not stop its being proved. The proof has to come, if at all, from more circumstantial evidence. The present case has those characteristics. The allegation is a serious one, so the evidence necessary to make out the case has to be commensurately stronger, on normal principles. ‘ The undue influence was found to be proved: ‘Nick was instrumental in sowing in his mother’s mind the desirability of his having the house, and in doing so he took advantage of her vulnerability. It is not possible to determine any more than that the precise form of the pressure, or its occasion or occasions, but it is not necessary to do so. I am satisfied that this will results from some form of undue influence.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Banks v Goodfellow QBD ((1870) LR 5 QB 549)
The testator suffered from delusions, but not so badly or in such a way as was found to affect his capacity or to influence his testamentary disposition. The judge had given the following direction: ‘The question is whether . . the testator was . . - Cited – Hoff and others v Atherton CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1554, [2005] WTLR 99)
Appeals were made against pronouncements for the validity of a will and against the validity of an earlier will. The solicitor drawing the will was to receive a benefit, and had requested an independent solicitor to see the testatrix and ensure that . . - Cited – Re Loxston, Abbot v Richardson ChD ([2006] WTLR 1567)
Mr N Strauss QC said: ‘The question is always whether the testator had the necessary capacity at the time the Will was executed, and that may depend upon the efforts made by others to enable her to have in mind all the relevant considerations . . - Cited – Wharton v Bancroft and Others ChD (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 91 (Ch))
The will was challenged for want of knowledge and approval of it by the testatrix.
Held: Norris J set out the correct approach: ‘(a) The assertion that Mr Wharton did not ‘know and approve’ of the 2008 Will requires the Court, before admitting . . - Cited – Edwards v Edwards and others ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch), [2007] WTLR 1387)
A son of the deceased alleged that his brother had used his undue influence over their mother to persuade her to change her will to exclude him from it.
Held: Lewison J set out the correct approach to an allegation of undue influence, saying: . . - Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 1430, [2010] NPC 126, [2011] 3 WLR 85, [2011] WTLR 251, [2011] Ch 380)
The court considered the authorities as to the capacity to make a will, and gave detailed guidance.
Held: As a matter of common sense and authority, the fact that a will has been properly executed, after being prepared by a solicitor and read . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 28 June 2020
Ref: 471578 br>
The post Schrader v Schrader: ChD 11 Mar 2013 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.