Andreas Ieropoullos v Stella Wilson

A will is generally proved by establishing due execution and testamentary capacity, but capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraudulent calumny remain distinct issues requiring separate analysis. Testamentary capacity is assessed under Banks v Goodfellow despite the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For a lifetime settlement, capacity is transaction-specific and the court may consider the Act’s principles. A language difficulty does not invalidate a deed where the person understood its general effect, could ask questions and intended to create legal relations. Presumed undue influence may be rebutted by evidence of independent decision-making and legal advice. Fraudulent calumny requires a knowingly false or reckless representation about a beneficiary which caused the testamentary disposition. The claim was dismissed and the trust deed declared valid.

The claimant challenged his mother’s 2003 will and a 2011 trust deed made during her lifetime. He alleged lack of capacity, lack of knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraudulent calumny. He also challenged a 1995 will in the alternative. The court considered whether the 2003 will was valid, whether the 2011 trust satisfied the three certainties and was entered into knowingly, and whether either document resulted from improper influence or fraud. The claimant’s proposed claim for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 was not before the court. The court also addressed the 1995 will contingently.

1. 2003 will. The court found that the testator had testamentary capacity. The will was rational on its face and duly executed. The medical evidence disclosed no reason to doubt capacity, and there was no evidence that medication had impaired it.
2. The testator knew and approved the will. She had given instructions to the solicitor in English, the will accorded with those instructions, and the typographical error concerning a beneficiary did not invalidate it.
3. The claim of undue influence failed. There was no evidence of coercion. The testamentary provision reduced, rather than increased, the defendant’s inheritance, and the evidence was consistent with the testator’s own wish to benefit her sister and exclude the claimant.
4. The claim of fraudulent calumny also failed. The claimant did not establish a false representation which caused the will. On the facts, the testator knew the relevant circumstances and there was an independent explanation for the disposition.
5. 2011 trust deed. The testator had capacity to execute the deed. Although the trust disposed of her principal asset, she understood its general effect, asked relevant questions and gave instructions independently of the defendant. The trust had certainty of intention, subject matter and objects, applying Knight v Knight.
6. The testator intended to create legal relations and did not sign under a misapprehension. Her limited familiarity with technical legal language did not prevent understanding of the transaction. The presumption of undue influence was rebutted by her forceful personality, independent legal advice and sufficiently independent decision-making.
7. The 2003 will was pronounced in favour of, the 2011 trust deed was declared valid, and the claim was dismissed. Consideration of the 1995 will was unnecessary, although the judge stated that it too would have been found valid if required.