"Please Sir, I want some more!"
Rea v Rea
On the 23rd February 2024 the Court of Appeal overturned the decision in Rea v Rea, creating a landmark result for professionals in the Contentious Probate industry, in relation to Undue Influence claims.
The initial decision in this case saw the Claimant succeed in their claim that Undue Influence was present during the creation of the Deceased’s Will made in 2015. The Claimant had argued that the Defendant had exerted Undue Influence on the Deceased, forcing her to change her 30-year standing Will at the time, and re-distribute her estate in favour of the Defendant.
The decision in the first instance provided a solid framework for contentious probate professionals in that Undue Influence can be found where characteristics such as frailty and vulnerability of the deceased and reliance on the benefited party are found, among other factors.
However, the Defendant appealed the decision on the grounds that the terms of the defence and counterclaim were not such as to allow the Judge to find Undue Influence and that the Judge was, in any event, wrong to find Undue Influence.
The case went to the Court of Appeal where it was considered that Undue Influence in this context connotes coercion such as to “overpower the volition without convincing the judgement”. It was found that there was a mistake with the initial judgment as no such evidence of coercion could be found.
In contentious probate cases the result of this case means that where a Will is being challenged on the basis of Undue Influence it must be proved that the testator is “subject to the domination of another” and if they could speak their wishes, they would explain that “this is not my wish, but I must do it”.
Oliver v Oliver
The more recent case of Oliver v Oliver follows a similar claim whereby the High Court of Justice, on 09 September 2024, saw in a rare turn of events that the Deceased’s Will was invalidated as a result of both Undue Influence and lack of testamentary capacity.
In comparison to that of Rea v Rea, the case of Oliver v Oliver saw a significantly extreme level of behaviour from the Defendant (Rodney), examples of which included persuading the deceased to try drinking his own urine, to purge himself with Hydrogen Peroxide as well as fortifying the family home with extra security measures, such as locks, bolts, and welded gates, so that the Defendant’s siblings were in effect unable to visit the Deceased. The behaviours were extreme to the point that the Court saw that the Deceased “understood everything only through the prisms of Rodney’s viewpoint” and that the Deceased was “blinded by his reliance on Rodney”. Such behaviours being present during the execution of the Deceased’s 2015 Will.
The judgment in Oliver v Oliver emphasises a substantially more severe type of influence and coercion on the Deceased when it comes to looking at the validity of the Deceased’s 2015 Will. In contrast to that of Rea v Rea, the evidence is undoubtedly more apparent to support the Claim and, therefore, the Court deemed the last Will of the Deceased to be invalid.
The effect in practice
Rea v Rea emphasises what must be identified when a claim of Undue Influence is brought against an estate. The case determines that arguments such as frailty and vulnerability are not strong enough to verify Undue Influence, and that in any professional’s consideration of an Undue Influence claim, the evidence provided must not only identify persuasion, but coercion of the deceased’s intentions.
The case of Oliver v Oliver, therefore, represents a clear level of proof to which the claimants must overcome with evidence to be successful with their claim. It is a stark precedent for professionals and exhibits that demonstrating a level of dominance over the deceased in a general context, can help support a claim of Undue Influence when challenging with validity of a Will.
Comments