Shanaz Karim v Dean Steele & Anor

In a probate challenge, testamentary capacity is assessed by whether the testator understood the nature and effects of making a will, the extent of the property disposed of, and the claims requiring consideration. A duly executed will that appears rational gives rise to a presumption of capacity, but a real doubt places the evidential burden on the propounder to establish capacity.

Knowledge and approval require consideration of whether the testator understood the contents and effect of the will. Testamentary undue influence is a question of fact requiring proof of coercion or fraud; circumstantial evidence may suffice. Fraudulent calumny arises where dishonest aspersions poison the testator’s mind against a natural beneficiary.

The claimant, the deceased’s former live-in carer, challenged a later will under which the second defendant was the sole beneficiary. She alleged lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraudulent calumny. She also advanced an alternative proprietary estoppel claim concerning the deceased’s home.

The claims were tried on written evidence. The court considered the circumstances in which the later will was prepared, the deceased’s vulnerabilities, her relationship with the second defendant, and the evidence concerning the claimant’s exclusion from the estate. The central issues were whether the later will was valid and, if not, whether the earlier testamentary position or the alternative proprietary claim should govern.

1. Testamentary capacity. The court applied the principles in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5QB 549. Although the later will was duly executed and rational on its face, giving rise to a presumption of capacity, the evidence as a whole showed that the deceased retained capacity. A mistake in the beneficiary’s name and an isolated reference to dementia did not establish incapacity. Numerous contemporaneous records supported the conclusion that she understood her decisions and had capacity.
2. Knowledge and approval. Applying Gill v Woodall [2010] EWCA Civ 1430, [2011] Ch 380, the court asked whether the deceased understood what was in the will and what its effect would be. The instructions recorded by the will writers matched the will, which was neither complicated nor difficult to understand. The court therefore found knowledge and approval.
3. Undue influence. Applying Re Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch), the court treated testamentary undue influence as a question of fact requiring proof that the testator’s will was overborne by coercion or fraud. Consistently with Schrader v Schrader [2013] EWHC 466 (Ch), [2013] W.T.L.R. 701, circumstantial evidence could establish influence despite the absence of direct evidence. The deceased’s physical and psychological vulnerabilities, dependence on the second defendant, isolation from her former support network, his conduct and the unexplained withdrawals of money compelled the conclusion that the will was procured by pressure. The court also found, alternatively, that her intentions were vitiated by fraud.
4. Fraudulent calumny. The court further held that the later will was obtained by fraudulent calumny. The second defendant had poisoned the deceased’s mind with allegations that the claimant was poisoning and financially manipulating her, and he must have known those allegations were untrue.
5. The court pronounced against the later will and revoked the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed. It was unnecessary to determine the proprietary estoppel claim.