Ball & Ors v Ball & Ors

A mere mistake of fact does not invalidate a will or, by itself, establish lack of testamentary capacity. The mistake must provide evidence of an insane delusion or of an impairment of memory or mental functioning sufficient to remove capacity. Undue influence in probate cases must be proved and is never presumed. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, an adult child has no entitlement to inherit. The question is whether reasonable financial provision for maintenance has been made, assessed by the applicant’s needs and all relevant circumstances. Need alone does not require an award.

The claimants, three adult children of the deceased, challenged their mother’s 1992 will. The will excluded them and divided the estate among other children and a grandson. They alleged lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and failure to make reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.

The alleged incapacity was based on an asserted mistake about sexual-abuse allegations made against the deceased’s husband. The claimants also argued that the exclusion resulted from pressure by the husband. The estate was modest and the claimants lived independently. The central issues were whether the will was valid and whether it made reasonable financial provision for the claimants’ maintenance.

1. Validity of the will. The claim was dismissed. On the evidence, the testatrix understood that allegations had been made, knew that her husband had admitted some of them, and believed that the allegations had been exaggerated. She was not acting under a significant mistake.
2. Testamentary capacity. The ordinary test in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 applied. A testator need not possess a perfectly balanced mind and may make a capricious, spiteful or mean will. A mere mistake, including a mistake about another person’s guilt, is insufficient. It may matter only where it demonstrates an insane delusion or a failure of memory or mental functioning sufficient to deprive the testator of capacity. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 did not apply to this will.
3. Undue influence. In probate cases undue influence must always be proved and is never presumed. The simultaneous execution of similar wills and the testatrix’s stressful circumstances did not establish influence. The evidence instead showed that she was the dominant partner. Her decision to exclude the claimants was not itself evidence of undue influence.
4. 1975 Act claim. The claimants qualified as children under section 1(1)(c), including though they were adults. The Act preserved testamentary freedom and did not create forced heirship. The relevant question under sections 1(2)(b) and 3 was whether the will made provision reasonable in all the circumstances for the claimants’ maintenance, not whether the deceased had acted reasonably or whether the claimants deserved a legacy. Their needs, the modest estate, the beneficiaries’ circumstances, the estrangement and the parties’ conduct were relevant. Need alone was insufficient, and no moral obligation or other special circumstance justified an award.
5. The claims based on capacity, undue influence and the 1975 Act all failed. The claim was dismissed.