It is a rare occurrence when the court determines that a will should be overturned, having found that undue influence has been exercised over the testator. In the recent case of Oliver v Oliver, the testator’s will was overturned on the basis that there had been undue influence, and that the testator lacked testamentary capacity. This case is particularly noteworthy, given that the testator’s GP had certified at the time that he had testamentary capacity, and the testator had managed to give extensive instructions in relation to the preparation of his will.  

Undue influence

The testator (William) lived with his son (Rodney) and was completely dependent on him, both physically and emotionally. Rodney systematically isolated William, and took control of all aspects of his life, including his financial matters and medical care. Rodney’s behaviour was severe, and regrettably, only met with consequences when he was arrested shortly before William’s death, after he admitted to administering hydrogen peroxide and urine to his father’s catheter.  

Rodney’s behaviour, and William’s willingness to accept this treatment from his son (particularly having been an intelligent man of stout conviction, previously), helped the court to determine that there had been undue influence in the production of the will. Looking beyond the extreme facts of this case, it is important that the court came to this decision, in part, through considering the undue influence that Rodney had over William’s decisions in general, rather than simply in relation to the production of the will. The context of William’s day-to-day life illustrated his inability to make a new will without Rodney’s assistance and approval, and indicated the strong likelihood that Rodney compelled William to make this Will. This decision illuminates the consideration that practitioners should give to the undue influence that loved ones may have had, generally, over vulnerable testators, as well as specifically in relation to the production of the will, where undue influence claims arise.

Testamentary capacity

Despite the evidence submitted by William’s GP, concerning his capacity, the court found that William failed the third and fourth limbs of the Banks v Goodfellow test. The recording of his instructions to his solicitor made it clear that William held false beliefs that his other sons had unlawfully extracted substantial cash reserves from the family business. The court found that these false beliefs amounted to delusions of the mind, which were produced in a mind which had been damaged by illness and mistreatment, and which had been strongly influenced by Rodney’s false allegations. The recording also confirmed William’s complete dependence on Rodney, and the fact that William was unable to grasp the claims his other children might bring against his estate, were he to execute this will. Therefore, William lacked testamentary capacity, and his will was found to be invalid.