The tumultuous case of Rea v Rea had begun in 2016 and had gone through four trials before a final judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in 2023.
Background
The Deceased, Anna Rea, prepared a Will in 2015 leaving her property to her daughter, Rita, leaving the remainder of the estate to be split between the daughter and her three brothers. Prior to this 2015 Will, in 1986 Rea had executed a Will which divided her estate equally between her four children. The Will had included reasons why Rea had decided to make a specific gift to her daughter only, which is not commonly incorporated to a will:-
“I declare that my sons do not help with my care and there have been numerous calls for help from me, but they are not engaging with any help or assistance. My sons have not taken care of me and my daughter Rita Rea has been my sole carer for many years…. I do not wish for them to share in my estate save what I have stated in this Will”
The 2015 Will was drafted by an experienced solicitor who was a member of both the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPs) and The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP), which are both seen as a kite mark of expertise in this area of law. Additionally, the Will was witnessed in the presence of a GP who had conducted a capacity assessment in accordance with the Golden Rule.
Rita’s three brothers who were left out of the last Will, brought a claim challenging the validity of the Deceased’s Will with their main argument being that their mother was unduly influenced by their sister, Rita. At the same time, they had claimed that they did not know about the 2015 Will during the deceased’s lifetime and had attributed this as being because their mother was unduly influenced. Undue influence relates to whether a third party forced a testator into making the will in question. There is a high bar set to prove undue influence, so the evidence needs to be compelling. For a claim of this kind, there must be evidence that the third party coerced the testator to the degree where their free will was overborne, and that this did not reflect the testator’s independent wishes. In simple terms, to prove undue influence, mere suspicion is insufficient to fulfil the above criteria.
Decision
The Court held in favour of the daughter and overturned the High Court ruling of 2022, holding that the 2015 Will was valid. Ultimately, the Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of undue influence asserted by the brothers. It reaffirmed that while suspicious circumstances may cast doubt, they do not automatically prove coercion.
The trial judge also noted that the testator had capacity and was of sound mind to make decisions independently at the time the Will was executed. As the Will was prepared by a professional and extra measures had been made to get the deceased’s Will witnessed by an independent medical professional, this made all the difference in the court ruling in favour of the 2015 Will. This is a cautionary tale for legal practitioners to discern when it is best to get a medical professional involved to provide a capacity assessment, especially when ‘interested’ parties are left out of a will.
This case also highlights the importance of upholding the principle of testamentary freedom, even in cases where the outcome may be inequitable for some parties.
Key findings
A point to note from the judgment is the significance of the solicitors’ and medical experts’ opinion. Additionally, it highlights how the Golden Rule Is not just a legal rule as such, but rather a rule of good practice that is given significant weight.
The Court also found that the solicitor was competent and a reliable witness, and for this reason they took her comments into consideration when handing down the judgment.
The development of this case through the years is also a warning that two trial judges can reach different conclusions on the same issue. Finally, the Court of Appeal described undue influence as ‘inherently improbable’. In most cases, facts which could point towards undue influence will be more likely to show simple persuasion rather than coercion.
The judgment can be found here.
Contact our Litigation and Dispute Resolution experts
Nadine Esaid is a Solicitor in the Bishop & Sewell Litigation and Dispute Resolution team. If you would like to contact a member of the team please call on 020 7631 4141 or email nesaid@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 04 December 2024. The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
