Case Study: Will Disputes

1 July 2021 | Wills, Trust & Probate |

 This case looks at promises made and unsatisfactory medical evidence in Will disputes

A recent case of Hughes v Pritchard & Ors is a stark reminder that we need to be careful as to what we say to others when in discussions about our Estate for after we have died. Further, that careful consideration needs to be had when drafting a Will with someone suffering from moderately severe dementia. This case deals with both proprietary estoppel, and a validity of a Will.

Validity of the Will

In law, the default position is that a person has capacity to give legal instructions, for example, to draft a Will. However, if a legal professional suspects that someone lacks that capacity, they may request proof of capacity before carrying out those instructions.

In this case, Evan Hughes suffered with moderately severe dementia when attending a solicitor’s office in March 2016. It was held that Mr Hughes’ condition was “deteriorating from week to week” from first instructions to the execution of the Will.

Following the initial instructions, the solicitor involved requested a capacity assessment to ensure that Mr Hughes was able to provide and understand those instructions. This capacity assessment was completed by Dr Pritchard (Mr Hughes’ GP) who confirmed that there were no issues of capacity for Mr Hughes, and that he was comfortable acting as a witness to the signing of Mr Hughes’ Will.

Based on this evidence, the solicitor instructed proceeded to draft and allow the Will to be executed in July 2016.

Upon Mr Hughes’ death in March 2017, some of the family members questioned the validity of the Will. It was claimed that Mr Hughes was often confused, and, as one of many examples, although had owned his land and property for many years as it was inherited from his family, would often get the parcels of land mixed up. He would also have trouble remembering the names of close friends and family.

During the court case, an independent medical expert, Dr Series, was instructed to review the records and letters of Dr Pritchard and the solicitor who drafted the Will. Dr Series was of the opinion that Mr Hughes did have capacity. However, as the Judge held, “[h]e did not have the advantage which I have had of seeing and hearing many witnesses who knew Evan Hughes over many years”.

Because the Judge had the advantage of reading and hearing all the witness evidence, including those that knew Mr Hughes well, it was held that despite the contemporaneous medical evidence, the 2016 Will was invalid on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity.

Proprietary Estoppel

Proprietary Estoppel is a method of bringing a claim based on promises made from one person to the Claimant, and as a result of those promises, the Claimant has suffered a detriment, usually financial.

In this case, Mr Hughes’ son, Elfed, was promised that certain parcels of Mr Hughes’ extensive farmland property would be left to him.

In an earlier Will, Mr Hughes had left Elfed all other freehold and leasehold property save for a bungalow and garden land, which was gifted to Mr Hughes’ daughter, and £2,000.00 for each of the grandchildren.

In the 2016 Will, and after Elfed had tragically died in 2015, Elfed’s children were to inherit significantly less, and Mr Hughes’ other son Gareth to inherit significantly more.

It was heard that Elfed worked long hours on the farm to help his father, for little pay. Elfed’s son Geraint was also persuaded to give up his employment to work on the farm, attracting a salary of less than half of what he was previously earning. Elfed also helped with the majority of expenses and purchase of the machinery used on the farm.

As well as this, Elfed purchased his own farm running alongside his father’s, and built a bride to link the two, which assisted with the cattle being able to pass between the two farms.

It was held that the financial detriment Elfed endured “was such that the understanding that he [Mr Hughes] had with his son has been fulfilled.” As such, the Judge held that if the 2016 Will was later seen to be valid, a significant parcel of land would be subject to an equity in favour Elfed’s Estate.

However, given that it was held that the 2016 Will is invalid, the terms of the earlier Will are in force, which means that Elfed’s Estate inherited Mr Hughes’ entire Estate, save for the bungalow, and grandchildren’s cash gift, as detailed above.

This case is a reminder that you need to be careful what promises you make to people in relation to what will be inherited, as disputes may arise. Also, it is a stark example that even with medical evidence, the whole situation of the Testator’s life as a round needs to be considered when deciding on mental capacity.