Hinton & Anor v Leigh & Anor

A revocation of a will is ineffective where the person executing it lacked testamentary capacity. Capacity requires understanding the nature and effect of the act, the extent of the property affected, and the claims to which effect ought to be given. It is also absent where a disorder of the mind poisons the person’s affections or an insane delusion influences the disposition. A finding of capacity may support an inference of knowledge and approval, unless suspicion is aroused. Undue influence requires coercion which overbears free will; strong persuasion or family pressure alone is insufficient.

The claimants, Bernard Hinton and Patricia Hayes, challenged a revocation executed by Victor Reeve shortly before his death. The revocation purported to revoke his will, under which the principal beneficiaries were the claimants and their relatives, so that Victor’s adopted children, Susanna Leigh and Simon Reeve, would inherit on intestacy.

The issues were whether Victor had testamentary capacity, knew and approved the revocation, and acted under undue influence or fraud. The defendants did not attend or have legal representation during the first three days of the trial, when the claimants’ witnesses gave evidence.

1. Testamentary capacity. The court found that Victor lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the revocation. His confusion, cognitive deterioration, irrational suspicions and marked change in attitude towards people whom he had previously trusted showed that a mental disorder had poisoned his affections and that insane delusions had influenced his decision.
2. The belief that Bernie Hinton was attempting to obtain Victor’s Spanish apartment was unfounded and irrational. The belief that Patricia Hayes was interested only in Victor’s money was equally irrational and had influenced the decision to disinherit her. Victor’s decision to disinherit Carry, despite there being no relevant conduct by her, further demonstrated the irrationality of the disposition.
3. Alternative findings. Although it was unnecessary to decide the remaining issues, the court found that Victor knew and approved the contents of the revocation. He understood that it would revoke all earlier wills and cause his property to pass to Susanna and Simon.
4. The court also found that the evidence did not establish undue influence. Susanna was probably in a position to exert heavy pressure, but the evidence of the solicitor who met Victor alone showed that Victor’s wish to revoke the will was his own and that his free will was not overborne.
5. There was no evidence that Susanna had made the false accusations relied upon for the allegation of fraud. Victor had deluded himself about the beneficiaries’ motives.
6. The revocation was declared to be of no legal effect. Probate was ordered to be granted to Bernie Hinton as executor of the will. Further submissions on other relief and costs were reserved.