Jane Oliver v Rodney William Oliver
[2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch)
Rita Rea v Remo Rea & Ors
23 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 169
Court of Appeal
An elderly woman left her house to her daughter in her will, cutting out her sons. A lower court said the daughter tricked her mom. The appeals court disagreed, saying there wasn't enough proof the daughter forced her mom's hand. The mom's will now stands.
Key Facts
- •Anna Rea made a will (the 2015 Will) leaving her house to her daughter Rita, largely disinheriting her sons.
- •Anna's sons challenged the 2015 Will, alleging undue influence by Rita.
- •The High Court found the 2015 Will invalid due to undue influence by Rita.
- •Rita appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.
- •Anna was elderly, frail, and dependent on Rita for care.
- •Rita arranged the appointment with the solicitor and was present during the initial instruction meeting.
- •A medical professional assessed Anna's capacity and found her capable.
- •The solicitor involved, Mrs. Sukul, believed Anna acted freely.
- •The 2015 Will significantly altered Anna's previous will, which had stood for almost 30 years.
- •Rita's evidence was found to be unreliable by the trial judge.
Legal Principles
Undue influence in the context of wills requires coercion, not merely persuasion. The testator's volition must be overborne.
Parfitt v Lawless (1869-72) LR 2 P&D 462, Hall v Hall (1865-69) LR 1 P&D 481
The burden of proving undue influence rests on the party alleging it, to the civil standard (more likely than not).
Home Secretary v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47, [2003] 1 AC 153
Undue influence can be proven circumstantially, even without direct evidence.
Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch)
To invalidate a will, circumstances must show undue influence was more probable than any other hypothesis; mere consistency with undue influence is insufficient.
Boyse v Rossborough (1857) 6 HL Cas 2, Craig v Lamoureux [1919] AC 349, Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC
Appellate courts should only interfere with trial judge's findings of fact if the decision is unreasonable or flawed in reasoning.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conclusion of undue influence was not supported by the evidence. The evidence, including the testimony of the solicitor and doctor involved, pointed towards Anna's independent decision-making and rational reasons for her actions, despite the trial judge's assessment of Rita's credibility.
The 2015 Will was deemed valid.
The Court of Appeal determined that the circumstances did not meet the threshold for proving undue influence. The Judge's reliance on circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome the testimony of credible witnesses and the inherent improbability of coercion in the circumstances.
The counterclaim was dismissed.
With the 2015 will deemed valid, the counterclaim challenging its validity became moot.