Jeffrey v Jeffrey

A disinherited son attempted to overturn his mother's will principally by arguing that a vulnerable mental state and an addiction to prescription drugs deprived her of testamentary capacity.

The relationship between the two wasn't good having deteriorated after the family business was handed over to son Andrew in 2000 and him accusing his mother of stealing money from it a year later.

In 2004, the deceased made a will all but disinheriting her son. And things got worse in 2006 when Andrew was charged with, though later acquitted of, 34 counts of fraud relating to the business.

Three years before she died, in 2007, the mother wrote a new will excluding Andrew entirely. Her other son, Nicholas, was named main beneficiary and appointed an executor.

For several years before her death, the deceased had suffered from anxiety and was prescribed sedatives, something Andrew relied on to establish a lack of testamentary capacity. He further claimed that the will was made under Nicholas' undue influence and that the deceased did not know or approve its contents. Therefore, the will was invalid.

The court heard evidence from the deceased's doctors, lawyers, family members and executors, all of which pointed to her having testamentary capacity at the time of making her will. She had been taking low doses of benzodiazepines and an antidepressant, but there was no evidence to support Andrew's contention that she had shown erratic behaviour because of a "cocktail" of prescription drugs.

Mild depression

Applying the test in Banks v Goodfellow [1870], the court found no doubt that the deceased fully understood she was making a will, the extent of her property, and the claims to which she ought to give effect. She had "never suffered from any mentally incapacitating complaint, even if she did experience occasional anxiety and mild depression. If people suffering from such complaints were unable to make wills, a large percentage of the population would be so inhibited."

Andrew's claim of undue influence was also rejected robustly. The court noted the high standard required to prove a claim of undue influence and the need to show illegitimate coercion. Andrew would have to prove that Nicholas "so overbore the deceased's will as to induce her to make a will where she would not otherwise have done so".

The court found that, rather than seeking to overbear his mother, Nicholas was "something of a pawn" in her dominant hands. He assisted with her affairs, but there was no evidence that the deceased sought or accepted his advice.

In the court's view, Andrew's claim arose from his inability to believe that his mother would voluntarily disinherit him. He sought to blame Nicholas for this, but there was no evidence to suggest that Nicholas influenced his mother, let alone unduly.

The deceased sought and obtained professional advice on her will and she was certain of her wish to exclude Andrew. Her solicitor properly explained the will clauses to her, she understood what he was saying, and was fully aware of the nature and effect of her actions.

Andrew failed on all counts and the court decreed the will valid.

See Jeffrey and another v Jeffrey [2013] EWHC 1942 (Ch)

Heather Viljoen is a solicitor at Michelmores

She writes regular case updates for Private Client Adviser