Steven Maile & Anor v Ruth Elizabeth Maile & Ors

A testamentary instrument is valid where the testator understood the nature and effect of the transaction, the general extent of the property, and the claims requiring consideration. Testamentary capacity is not a memory test. The solicitor’s “golden rule” is best practice, not a validity requirement.

Knowledge and approval require the court to determine whether the instrument represented the testator’s actual testamentary intentions. A clear, contemporaneous attendance note by an experienced solicitor may provide compelling evidence. In testamentary proprietary-estoppel cases, an assurance about a future will must be clear and unequivocal, with a quality of immutability. Reliance must be proved, and detriment must be substantial net detriment after countervailing benefits are considered.

The claimants, grandsons of the deceased owner of West Hook Farm, challenged her 2016 and 2017 codicils. They alleged lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval, and undue influence. They also claimed that their grandmother had assured them that they would inherit the Farm and that they had relied on that assurance to their detriment.

The defendants denied the claims. The estate’s executrix counterclaimed for possession and damages for the continued occupation of the Farm after the claimants’ contractual right to occupy had ended. The central issues were whether the codicils were valid, whether a proprietary estoppel equity arose, and whether the counterclaim succeeded.

1. Probate claims dismissed. The 2016 and 2017 Codicils were pronounced valid in solemn form.
2. Testamentary capacity. Applying the Banks v Goodfellow test, as formulated in Hughes v Pritchard, the deceased understood the nature and effect of the Codicils, the general extent of her property, and the claims to which she ought to give effect. Her later confusion did not establish incapacity at execution. The test was transaction- and issue-specific, and not a test of memory. The experts’ evidence, the solicitor’s attendance notes, and the surrounding evidence supported capacity.
3. The “golden rule” required a solicitor acting for an aged testator to consider obtaining a contemporaneous medical assessment, but it was a principle of best practice. Non-compliance did not invalidate the Codicils.
4. Knowledge and approval. The 2016 Codicil revoked the 2011 Codicil and reinstated the relevant provision of the 2006 Will. The deceased had been taken carefully through the competing dispositions and understood that the Farm would fall into the residue for her daughters to deal with fairly. The solicitor’s contemporaneous note and letter were decisive evidence. Later conversations did not show that the Codicil failed to represent her intentions at execution.
5. Undue influence. Rea v Rea required proof of coercion. Age, vulnerability, persuasion, affection or suspicious circumstances were insufficient. There was no credible evidence that either Sheila or the solicitor overpowered the deceased’s will.
6. Proprietary estoppel. The claim failed at the assurance and reliance stages. General statements made during the claimants’ youth were not clear and unequivocal assurances that they would directly inherit the Farm. A testamentary intention must have a quality of immutability before reliance on it can make later revocation unconscionable. The claimants continued working after learning of the 2016 Codicil, undermining reliance. In any event, they failed to prove substantial net detriment after allowing for free occupation, partnership benefits, payments and other advantages.
7. The Partnership Agreement and its purchase Option were also inconsistent with the asserted equitable rights. The rights could not survive the Agreement’s coming into force.
8. Counterclaim allowed. The contractual right to occupy ended on 22 March 2021. The claimants, Ruth and Peter were ordered to give up possession. They were jointly and severally liable for the unrefurbished Farmhouse rental value of £10,000 per annum from that date. The claimants were additionally liable for the rest of the Farm at £23,000 per annum. Interest was fixed at 3% over base rate. The dilapidations claim failed.