Understanding undue influence in will disputes

When a Will appears to favour a particular beneficiary over others, the question of whether undue influence played a role often arises. If a testator—someone who creates a Will—was coerced, persuaded, or manipulated into making decisions that they wouldn't have made otherwise, the validity of the Will could be challenged. In legal terms, this is known as "undue influence."

Undue influence is typically a concern when a testator’s estate is left to someone who wasn’t expected to benefit, such as a carer instead of family members. Often, the testator is elderly, vulnerable, and may rely on the individual who stands to inherit, which raises concerns of potential coercion. For example, why would a parent leave the majority of their estate to one child over others, or why would a testator choose a carer who has been paid to look after them instead of a family member?

In these situations, a new Will is often discovered only after the testator's death, and the individual benefitting has a financial interest in ensuring the validity of the Will. As a result, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise, questioning whether the Will reflects the true intentions of the testator or if undue influence was exerted to alter those intentions.

The challenge with undue influence claims is that they often occur “behind closed doors,” with little or no direct evidence to support a claim. Circumstantial evidence—such as the testator’s vulnerability, the actions of the beneficiary, and the timing of the Will—becomes critical, but even then, claims for undue influence are difficult to win.

A landmark case involving undue influence is Schrader v Schrader, where the court accepted circumstantial evidence as proof of undue influence. In that case, the testatrix (the person making the Will) was highly dependent on her son, who was the beneficiary of the altered Will. The reason given for her decision to leave her house to him was inaccurate, and the son had a forceful personality and was involved in the Will’s preparation. Based on these facts, the court concluded that undue influence had been exerted, and the testatrix’s earlier Will was upheld.

A more recent case, Rea v Rea (2024), further demonstrates the complexities of proving undue influence. In this case, Anna, the testatrix, was physically frail, wheelchair-bound, and hard of hearing. She was largely dependent on her daughter, Rita, who was found to have a dominant personality. Rita was also involved in arranging the appointment with the Will writer and was present during the drafting of the new Will. The new Will significantly deviated from Anna’s previous one and was kept secret from Anna’s sons.

At first instance, the trial judge found that the circumstances indicated undue influence and declared the new Will invalid. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision. The court reviewed the same circumstantial evidence, including Anna’s vulnerability, Rita’s involvement, and the timing of the Will’s creation. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found plausible explanations for all of these factors and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish undue influence. The more recent Will was therefore upheld.

While the Rea v Rea case and Schrader v Schrader remain important precedents in undue influence claims, they highlight the increasingly difficult task of proving such claims. Circumstantial evidence alone is rarely sufficient to prove undue influence, and courts now demand more rigorous analysis before invalidating a Will.

As the law currently stands, a careful evaluation of the facts is essential in any case involving suspected undue influence. The court will scrutinize various factors—such as the testator’s mental and physical state, the beneficiary’s role in the Will’s creation, and the reasons for any major changes from a previous Will—before making a determination.

Phil Collins, Partner at Winckworth Sherwood, advises that individuals who are concerned about the validity of a Will seek professional legal advice as soon as possible. “Given the complexities of undue influence claims, it’s critical to consult with an expert to assess the facts and determine the best course of action,” he says.

In conclusion, proving undue influence remains a challenging process in Will disputes. The Rea v Rea case demonstrates that, while circumstantial evidence can sometimes be persuasive, it is increasingly difficult to establish a claim of undue influence without clear and compelling evidence. Anyone considering challenging a Will on these grounds should approach it with caution and seek expert legal counsel.