Elliott v Bateson: High Court strikes life interest trust from will for want of knowledge and approval

A High Court judge has held that a testator did not know and approve a life interest trust in his 2022 will, and ordered the trust wording struck out, while rejecting a separate claim of undue influence. In Elliott v Bateson & Anor [2026] EWHC 2440 (Ch), HHJ Michael Berkley, sitting as a judge of the High Court in Bristol, considered consolidated claims by the testator's widow, acting through a litigation friend.

The widow challenged the will and also claimed under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The testator, then aged 92 and frail, had moved to the home of his daughter and son-in-law, the defendants, while a care package was sought. The will was made in May 2022. It left the widow a life interest in half of a wholly cash estate, with the rest going to the daughter and her family. Capacity was not in issue.

The judge applied Fuller v Strum, Hawes v Burgess and Gill v Woodall. A professionally prepared, duly executed will attracts a strong presumption of knowledge and approval, but where circumstances arouse suspicion the propounder must affirmatively show that it reflects the testator's intentions.

The drafting solicitor was, the judge said, experienced and honest. The difficulty lay in the advice. The testator's initial instruction was an outright gift of half his estate to his widow. The life interest trust was the solicitor's idea, and the attendance note recorded that she "could have access" to the funds, which could not be used for care home fees.

The trust gave the widow income only, with no power to advance capital. Any access to capital depended on the daughter, as remainderman, gifting part of her own inheritance. The solicitor's explanation shifted between the attendance note, his witness statement and his oral evidence, where he relied on Saunders v Vautier. That rule requires all beneficiaries to consent with capacity, which was doubtful, and he accepted he had not explained it to the testator. There was no discussion of the level of income, and a follow-up letter did not flag the departure from instructions.

The judge accepted that the testator wished to reduce the widow's gift to half his estate. However, he was told the widow would have access to the funds and could only have understood that she could call on capital. Evidence that he read the will was inconsistent, and any reading was probably cursory. Given the fundamental change from his instructions and his frailty, the solicitor should have explained it carefully and recorded that explanation. He did not, though the judge did not suggest he concealed the implications.

Applying Marley v Rawlings and Mundil-Williams v Williams, the judge held that the words creating the life interest could be excised as a self-contained provision and ordered them struck out.

The undue influence claim failed. Citing Edwards v Edwards and Rea v Rea, the judge noted the high burden and found the defendants generally honest witnesses. Contemporaneous social services records showed the testator consistently expressing his own views, including in their absence. The judge deprecated the defendants' failure to correct certain mistaken beliefs the testator held about the claimant's family, but did not see that as having caused the change to the widow's gift.

No award was made under the 1975 Act, the widow having achieved all she could. Costs and the form of order were reserved.

Joss Knight, instructed by Mogers Drewitt LLP, appeared for the claimant. Julian Reed, instructed by Jasper Vincent Solicitors, appeared for the defendants.