High Court Rules in Favor of Validity of Fred Ward's Will in Capacity and Undue Influence Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 347 (Ch)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Carol Frances Gowing & Ors v Terence Arthur Ward & Anor [2024] EWHC 347 (Ch) revolves around the validity of the last will of Frederick Ward (“Fred”), specifically examining the allegations of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and fraudulent calumny levied against his surviving children, who were the defendants and residuary beneficiaries under the contested will. The claims were brought by the granddaughters of the deceased who argued that the 2018 Will was not reflective of their grandfather’s true intentions. The High Court’s thorough analysis sheds light on important testamentary legal principles pertaining to the creation and contestation of wills within the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Key Facts

The claim concerns the alleged invalidity of Fred Ward’s 2018 Will which left most of his estate to his two surviving children, excluding significant provision for his deceased son’s daughters, the claimants. The claimants initially argued Fred lacked testamentary capacity, or did not know and approve of the will’s contents or that it was created under undue influence or fraudulent calumny. Despite withdrawing the claim of fraudulent calumny, the claimants maintained allegations concerning undue influence and a lack of testamentary capacity on Fred’s part when the will was executed.

Testamentary Capacity

The court reiterated the principles established in Banks v Goodfellow (1870), which requires the testator to understand:

  1. The nature of the will-making act and its effects;
  2. The extent of the property of which they are disposing;
  3. The claims to which they ought to give effect, without any disorder affecting their decision-making.

A challenge to testamentary capacity typically requires a retrospective analysis of the testator’s mental state at the time the will was made, as underscored in Key v Key [2010]. The evidence here did not support a permanent cognitive impairment but recognized that temporary mental capacity loss could’ve occurred due to underlying medical conditions. The court ultimately found that Fred had the requisite capacity.

Knowledge and Approval

Knowledge and approval of the will’s contents is presumed where a will is rational and executed properly, especially after being prepared by a solicitor and read by the testator. As detailed in Schrader v Schrader [2013], the court must ensure that the will reflects the true testamentary intentions without being influenced by external factors. The court found no significant evidence suggesting Fred didn’t understand or approve the contents of the 2018 Will.

Undue Influence

Undue influence occurs when a will does not result from the testator’s desires but from pressures exerted by another, overpowering the testator’s volition. Following the criteria set out in Edwards v Edwards [2007], the court must determine any coercion or fraud in the will-making process. The court did not find credible evidence pointing to the defendants’ coercion or manipulation impacting Fred’s free agency in creating the 2018 Will.

Fraudulent Calumny

This is a specific type of fraudulent activity where the trustor is deceived into disinheriting someone based on false statements. Although the claim of fraudulent calumny was withdrawn, the principles established were that for such a claim to succeed, the defrauder must either know the calumnies are false or not care about their falsity, in direct efforts to influence the testamentary distribution.

Outcomes

The court dismissed the claims that Fred lacked testamentary capacity and was a victim of undue influence or fraudulent calumny. The evidence supported the conclusion that Fred had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of his will. There was also no substantial proof of the defendants exerting undue influence or committing fraudulent calumny on their father to effect the testamentary disposition of his estate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the High Court’s judgment in Carol Frances Gowing & Ors v Terence Arthur Ward & Anor serves as a reminder of the stringent legal scrutiny required to overturn a will based on allegations of lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence. The judgment affirms the presumption of validity where a will appears rational and properly executed, and underscores the need for clear, convincing evidence to rebut this presumption. The court’s meticulous appraisal of the facts and application of established legal principles offer a paradigm on the substantial burden claimants must overcome to succeed in such claims.