Victoria Elizabeth Copley v Daniel Brent Winter

A will is valid if the testator understood the nature and effect of the act, the extent of the property, and the claims to which effect should be given, and was free from an operative disorder or delusion. A duly executed and facially rational will attracts a presumption of capacity, subject to the evidential burden shifting if a real doubt is raised. The “golden rule” concerning medical assessment of an aged or seriously ill testator is good practice, not a rule of law, and compliance is not conclusive. Testamentary undue influence requires proof that coercion or fraud overbore the testator’s free judgment; persuasion and appeals to affection are insufficient. The allegation may be established by circumstantial evidence, but the court must decide whether the testator acted as a free agent.

Elaine Doris Lodge executed a will on 17 January 2019, leaving the Church Lane land to Victoria Elizabeth Copley, subject to a non-binding wish that she offer it to Daniel Brent Winter at market value if she chose to sell. Earlier wills had benefited Winter in relation to that land.

Copley sought a pronouncement in favour of the 2019 will. Winter counterclaimed for a pronouncement in favour of the 2017 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval, and undue influence. The lack of knowledge and approval issue was not pursued at trial. The central questions were whether Lodge had capacity when she executed the 2019 will and whether she acted freely or under Copley’s undue influence.

1. Capacity. The court applied the test in Banks v Goodfellow. Because the will was duly executed and rational on its face, capacity was presumed. Winter raised a possible doubt based principally on whether Lodge had received Oramorph on the morning of execution. The controlled-drug records, dispensing records and surrounding evidence made that unlikely. The court therefore rejected the capacity challenge.
2. The “golden rule” is a rule of solicitors’ good practice. It does not give conclusive status to a medical or professional opinion, and non-compliance does not establish invalidity. The court had to evaluate all relevant evidence, including the solicitor’s evidence, the medical material and the circumstances of execution.
3. Undue influence. The burden lay on Winter. Testamentary undue influence means coercion, in the sense of pressure that overbears the testator’s will, or fraud. The issue was whether Lodge acted as a free agent, not whether the disposition appeared fair. Direct evidence is not essential; inferences may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances, with careful scrutiny of the whole evidential picture.
4. The factors favouring undue influence included Lodge’s illness and bereavement, Copley’s closeness to her and role as carer, Copley’s involvement in communicating with the solicitors, an argument between Copley and Lodge, and Copley’s lie about that argument. Countervailing factors included Lodge’s previous careful testamentary decisions, her apparent understanding during the solicitor’s attendance, and the absence of pressure apparent to the solicitor.
5. The factors were finely balanced, but the court accepted that Lodge changed the disposition because she rationally considered that leaving the land to Copley gave the horses the best prospect of continued care. The pressure arising from the argument had not overborne her will. Lodge had testamentary capacity and acted without undue influence. Judgment was therefore given for Copley in principle and the counterclaim was dismissed.