2024 was a bumper year for contentious probate cases making the headlines. It seems not a month went by without another major case being decided, some with far reaching implications for this area of the law.
Here are 8 of the cases that made the news in 2024:
This undue influence saga saw a re-hearing of the initial hearing following an appeal and then a second hearing which resulted in a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. The long-running case was finally decided in favour of Rita Rea with the Court of Appeal finding that her mother Anna Rea’s 2015 was validly made.
On the key question of whether or not Rita had unduly influenced her mother into leaving Rita her house, the Court found that for coercion to be proved, it had to be shown to be probable that any other possibility and that here there was no question of coercion.
Importantly the Court of Appeal noted that where a solicitor had drafted the Will and had no concerns as to capacity and where the Golden Rule had been followed and a medical professional had witnessed the Will it would be difficult to succeed in a claim for undue influence.
Particularly relevant in light of the public discussion about the Assisted Dying Bill laid before Parliament at the end of 2024, this case looked at whether the forfeiture rule should be applied in assisted suicide cases.
In Morris v Morris the issue was whether those who travel with a loved one to an assisted suicide clinic should be unable to inherit from that loved one’s Estate.
The Court held that the mere act of travelling with a relative or loved one to an assisted suicide clinic was not an act that rose to the level of assisting or encouraging that suicide (which is illegal). As such, the forfeiture rule did not apply.
In yet another farming proprietary estoppel claim, this case established that a loss of the opportunity to lead a different life could in itself be considered a detriment. It would not be necessary to prove what alternative choices a claimant would have made but for the promise made.
The Court of Appeal concluded that where a claimant had devoted their entire working life to - in this case – working on the family farm in reliance upon a promise made they did not have to show what specific alternative course of action they would have taken which would have been more beneficial if it were not for that promise.
This is a significant development in proprietary estoppel cases with the Court concluding
To succeed in a proprietary estoppel claim, a claimant needs to show sufficiently substantial net detriment of whatever kind. Where, however, a claimant has made a life-changing choice and over many years undertaken work in reliance on an assurance, the Court will probably be prepared to treat loss of opportunity to lead a different life as itself detrimental without requiring the claimant to prove, or itself trying to determine, quite what the claimant would have done and with what consequences.
This case demonstrates the importance of the Will making process. In this case, the Will in question was found to be invalid for both lack of testamentary capacity and, unusually, undue influence. Undue influence is typically one of the harder grounds upon which to bring a successful challenge to the validity of a Will.
The Deceased – Wiliam Oliver – had previously made mirror Wills with his wife, leaving his Estate equally between his five children. Following his wife’s death in 2014, William made a new Will in 2015 which left his entire estate to one son, Rodney.
The Court found that Rodney had put his father in a position where he had false beliefs about his other children, and that Rodney exerted such control and dominance over his father as to render the Will invalid for lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. This was despite medical evidence of capacity being provided.
The case shows that all the limbs of the Banks v Goodfellow test must be met for a Will to be upheld as valid.
In a comprehensive summary of the law in relation to the Banks v Goodfellow test, this decision showed just how important the role of the Will writer is. Over a period of time a tax adviser worked with Mr Leonard to draft his Will but had not seen or spoken to him for over a year by the time the Will was executed
Evidence showed that in that time Mr Leonard’s cognitive abilities had declined, but no attempt was made to follow the Golden Rule and no medical assessment was carried out.
After a lengthy trial, the Court found that the 2015 Will was invalid for lack of capacity and is a stark reminder to professional advisers that testamentary capacity must be assessed on an ongoing basis throughout the Will-making process and not just at the start.
This rectification application under Section 20 Administration of Justice Act 1982 saw a Will rectified to give effect to the testator’s wishes. The case centred around provision for the long term partner of the deceased, who was referred to as a discretionary beneficiary of a Trust if the two were married.
The solicitors’ Will file demonstrated that the deceased had intended to benefit his partner whether or not they were married – which they were not at the date of his death. He had prepared a table showing who he wished to benefit, which included his partner.
The Court found that as a result of a clerical error on the part of the solicitors the reference to marriage had been included which was contrary to the intentions of the deceased and rectification was ordered.
The importance of a clear and comprehensive Will file was demonstrated in this case. In circumstances where a “tick box” instruction form had been used, it may have been much harder to evidence the testator’s actual intentions. The case is also another reminder of the lengths the Court will go to in upholding a testator’s intentions.
This case involved consideration of the requirements for a valid deathbed gift to be made – the legal concept of donatio mortis causa. The Court confirmed that for a deathbed gift to be upheld it must be made in contemplation of death and that the giver of the gift must provide some means of accessing the gift.
The case has clarified that registered land can be successfully handed over in a deathbed gift if the lease or land certificate is handed over and that digital access to bank accounts could also be handed over to effect a deathbed gift.
Of interest to those who are concerned about how claimants in 1975 Act claims fund their litigation, the Court of Appeal decided that the success fee on a conditional fee agreement was not recoverable from the Estate as part of an award to be made.
The case – brought on behalf of a daughter with severe learning difficulties against her father’s Estate – saw an award made to the claimant of £138,918 from an Estate of £554,000. Costs were assessed at £80,000 but the success fee of 72% of costs meant that an additional £57,600 would be paid out of that recovered sum. At first instance the Judge gave an allowance of £16,750 towards the success fee. The decision was appealed twice and the Supreme Court ultimately decided that the success fee element was not recoverable from the Estate.
The result was that the Claimant’s award was reduced by the £16,750 initially allowed for the success fee.
At Howes Percival we also had our fair share of complex cases including the removal and replacement of Executors, a successful claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 on behalf of a widow left nothing under her late husband’s Will, the revocation of a Grant of Letters of Administration and rectification of a defective Deed of Variation.
If you are concerned about a Will or Trust or think you may have a contentious trust and probate claim or dispute, please contact Jennifer Laskey ([javascript protected email address] to discuss further.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
