Pearce v Beverley

Pearce challenged the validity of her father's will and various property transactions, after he died, on the grounds that they were entered into because of Beverley's undue influence.

The deceased and the defendant had a relationship from late 2005 until his death in 2008. Its exact nature was not clear, but the defendant had been described as "partner, ex-partner, friend and carer". And there was no doubt that the deceased had trusted the defendant implicitly with managing his financial affairs. She had played a significant part in the financial negotiations on his divorce, and was the main contact in relation to the sale of two of his properties.

The deceased's health had deteriorated steadily from 2003 following a heart attack. As well as depression, he suffered from partial kidney failure and prostate cancer, and was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in November 2007.

In June 2007, the defendant accompanied the deceased to a solicitor to make a will. According to the solicitor's evidence, the defendant stated that the deceased was unable to speak for himself but wanted to change his will and leave everything to her. Given the deceased's inability to speak, the solicitor was concerned about his testamentary capacity.

The deceased nodded his assent to Beverley contacting his GP, but when the solicitor explained that she had to establish that the instructions reflected his wishes, the defendant became angry and stormed out of the office. Two days later, the deceased signed a will prepared by the Will Writing Company, leaving his entire estate to the defendant.

In 2006, property A had been transferred into the joint names of the deceased and the defendant. This was sold in 2007 and the net sale proceeds used to buy property B in joint names, with surplus funds paid into a joint bank account. Property C was also sold that year and the net sale proceeds paid into the same joint bank account.

A further property was bought shortly before the deceased's death in 2008 in the defendant's sole name with funds from the joint account.

The court found that the defendant was an unreliable witness and that her account of the meeting with the solicitor was untruthful. There was real doubt about capacity in light of the deceased's mental and physical health, so the defendant had to prove capacity.

This burden on the defendant also extended to proving knowledge and approval of the will, given the suspicious facts of the case. The defendant was the sole beneficiary under the will, was present throughout the will interview, and the deceased was a highly vulnerable adult who had, for no good reason, completely changed his relationship with his daughter and excluded her from his will.

On the evidence, the court was not satisfied that the burden had been satisfied on either count. The will was accordingly held not to be validly executed and the claimant entitled to the deceased's estate under the intestacy rules.

In the court's view, under the doctrine of undue influence, each of the property transactions called for an explanation. Given the trust and confidence that the deceased placed in the defendant, it was for her to show that the transactions were the spontaneous acts of the deceased exercising an independent will.

Other than the defendant's assertion that all of the transactions were in accordance with the deceased's wishes, there was no evidence that they were not procured by an abuse of her position. The burden was held not to be discharged and judgment given for the claimant.

See Pearce v Beverley [2013] EWHC 2627 (Ch)

Heather Viljoen is a solicitor at Michelmores

She writes regular case updates for Private Client Adviser