Coles v Reynolds & Anor

In a probate claim, testamentary capacity and due execution permit an inference that the testator knew and approved the will, but suspicious circumstances require affirmative proof of knowledge and approval. Testamentary undue influence must be proved by the person alleging it. Persuasion is insufficient; the testator’s free agency must have been overborne by coercion.

For inter vivos transactions, a presumption does not arise merely because a vulnerable person relied on another for assistance or advice. The claimant must establish either a protected relationship or trust and confidence, together with a transaction calling for explanation. Independent legal advice is relevant, but its effect depends on whether it gave the donor sufficient understanding and freedom of choice.

The claimant challenged her late mother’s 2012 will, which appointed the first defendant as sole beneficiary and executrix. She alleged that the will was procured by undue influence and that the deceased lacked knowledge and approval of its contents.

Subject to succeeding on the will challenge, the claimant also pursued derivative claims concerning an earlier assignment of a 50 per cent beneficial interest in the family home and alleged rental income. The defendants took no part in the proceedings before trial and appeared in person. The central issues were whether the will was valid and, if not, whether the inter vivos transaction and alleged rent claim were made out.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant failed to establish either want of knowledge and approval or undue influence in relation to the will. The derivative claims therefore did not arise, and would in any event have failed on the facts.
2. Where testamentary capacity and due execution are proved, knowledge and approval may be inferred. However, where circumstances arouse the court’s suspicion, the person propounding the will must affirmatively satisfy the court that the testator understood and approved its contents. Here, the deceased was interviewed alone by an independent solicitor, the will was read to her, she confirmed that she wished to sign it, and her contemporaneous statement explained the exclusion of the claimant.
3. Undue influence in relation to a will is never presumed. The claimant had to prove coercion which overbore the deceased’s freedom of action. The deceased’s age, frailty, reliance on the first defendant, the change from an earlier will, and the first defendant’s involvement did not establish coercion. Persuasion concerning gifts to grandchildren was not undue influence.
4. Applying Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773, presumed undue influence in an inter vivos transaction requires trust and confidence or a protected relationship, together with a transaction that calls for explanation. A parent-child relationship is not automatically protected, and vulnerability or reliance alone is insufficient. The assignment was satisfactorily explained by the defendants’ payment of £20,000 to discharge the bank’s charge, the value and security thereby obtained by the deceased, and the independent advice she received.
5. The alternative actual undue influence case was unsupported. The alleged rental claim also failed because the evidence did not establish that the property had been let.