Priti Patel v Nicholas O'Sullivan & Ors

Those propounding a will must prove that the testator knew and approved its contents. Due execution by a testator with capacity may create a strong presumption, especially where a solicitor took instructions and explained the will, but the presumption is not conclusive. The court must consider the totality of the evidence, including suspicious circumstances.

Testamentary undue influence requires proof of coercion or fraud. Persuasion, affection and legitimate pressure are insufficient unless the testator’s will is overborne. The burden rests on the person alleging undue influence, and the facts must be inconsistent with any other explanation.

The claimant challenged her deceased mother’s July 2020 will for want of knowledge and approval and undue influence by two relatives. The will was professionally prepared and executed by the first defendant, a solicitor and executor, after instructions were taken from the testatrix.

A consolidated claim also concerned whether £35,000 advanced by one relative in 2018 and 2019 remained outstanding. The claimant lacked capacity and proceeded through a litigation friend. The court determined the validity of the will, the alleged undue influence, and the loan.

1. Will validity. The court found that the testatrix had capacity, sufficient command of English, and understood the will when it was explained and executed. The circumstances warranted examining the evidence directly rather than relying on the presumption of knowledge and approval, because the will was made shortly after an earlier will with materially different provisions.
2. The solicitor’s evidence concerning the taking of instructions, explanation of the draft, and execution was accepted. The testatrix’s physical pain did not prevent understanding. The court accepted that the clauses concerning the £35,000 loan, the sale of the home, and consequences of a challenge were explained in sufficiently simple terms. Minor errors concerning funeral arrangements and a beneficiary’s date of birth did not materially undermine knowledge and approval.
3. Undue influence. The burden of proof lay on the claimant. Undue influence in relation to a testamentary disposition means coercion, in the sense that the testator’s will is overborne, or fraud. Mere persuasion or appeals to affection do not suffice. Although the two relatives had motive and opportunity, the evidence did not establish coercion. The court considered it more likely that they helped ensure the testatrix’s true wishes were implemented.
4. Loan. The court accepted the contemporaneous letters and evidence establishing advances of £25,000 in 2018 and £10,000 in 2019. The £17,750 later received from the testatrix was not repayment of the loan. The court therefore concluded that £35,000 remained outstanding.
5. The July 2020 will was valid. Judgment was effectively given for the outstanding £35,000, and the parties were directed to file an agreed draft order and written submissions on consequential matters within 14 days.