Rea v Rea & Ors

In a probate claim, knowledge and approval are determined holistically by considering all relevant evidence and drawing appropriate inferences from the totality of the material. Reading and execution of a will are important but not conclusive. Testamentary undue influence requires proof of coercion or fraud which overbears the testator’s free judgment; persuasion, affection and legitimate appeals are insufficient. Fraudulent calumny requires proof that the testator’s mind was poisoned by dishonest aspersions concerning a potential beneficiary. The court’s task is validity, not whether the disposition was fair or justified.

The claimant, the deceased’s daughter, sought probate in solemn form of her mother’s 2015 Will, which left the principal estate asset to her. Her brothers challenged the will on grounds of want of knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraudulent calumny, and counterclaimed for probate of an earlier will which divided the estate equally. They abandoned the testamentary-capacity issue at trial. The central questions were whether the deceased knew and approved the 2015 Will and whether it was procured by undue influence or fraudulent calumny.

1. Knowledge and approval. The court adopted the holistic approach in Gill v Woodall [2011] Ch 380. The question was whether, on the totality of the evidence, the claimant had established that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the will. The fact that she read or executed it was to be given appropriate weight, but neither fact was conclusive.
2. The solicitor’s careful process, the medical evidence, the deceased’s clear instructions and the circumstances of execution established beyond reasonable doubt that she understood the will and that it represented her genuine testamentary intentions. The claimant therefore discharged the burden of proof.
3. Undue influence. Following the summary in Re Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch), there was no presumption of undue influence in relation to a testamentary disposition. The burden lay on those asserting it. They had to prove facts inconsistent with any other hypothesis. Coercion meant pressure which overbore the testator’s volition without convincing the testator’s judgment. The evidence showed no coercion or pressure, and inference or supposition based on personality allegations was insufficient.
4. Fraudulent calumny. The defendants had to show that the claimant poisoned the deceased’s mind by casting dishonest aspersions on their character. There was no evidence that this occurred. The deceased’s statements about the defendants’ lack of care reflected her own view, and the evidence showed that she acted freely.
5. The court was concerned only with validity, not whether the will was fair or justified. The 2015 Will was valid and was admitted to probate. The counterclaim for probate of the 1986 Will was dismissed.

First-instance decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.