A  judge has found that a ‘campaign of undue influence’ has invalidated a will, following a legal battle which concluded at the High Court in February 2023.   Candice Harrison claimed that her cousin, Jonathan Greenwood, had turned her mother Julie against her after she became increasingly frail.

Ms Harrison’s father Arthur was an inventor and successful businessman who helped create the parachute component for the RAF Hawker Harrier jump jet’s ejector seat. He died in 2010 and left his estate to his wife Julie.

Julie Harrison was persuaded to change her will to leave her nephew a bequest of £400,000 in 2017, when she was 86 years old and suffering from dementia. Secret cameras, installed by Ms Harrison, caught Mr Greenwood as he tried to get her elderly mother to leave him more money.

The judge, Deputy Master McQuail said:

“At the time she made her will in 2017, the deceased harboured false beliefs that her daughter was taking her money without her authority and planned to sell her home and place her in a low-grade care home.”

It was found at the trial that Mr Greenwood had:

‘played on and exploited [the deceased’s] deteriorating condition’.

The judge declared that the 2017 will was invalid as a result of Mr Greenwood’s undue influence and instead reinstated an earlier 2012 will under which Ms Harrison will inherit almost all of her mother’s estate.

As the losing party, Mr Greenwood was also ordered to pay his cousin’s £120,000 legal fees.

So, what is undue influence in a will dispute?

What must be proved by the person bringing the claim is, in effect, coercion. That is, ‘pressure that has overpowered the freedom of action of the testator without having convinced the will of the testator’. The line between persuasion and coercion can be difficult to define.

Evidence may be circumstantial rather than direct and obvious. The allegation of undue influence in relation to wills is often run alongside others; usually ‘lack of knowledge and approval’ and ‘lack of capacity’, in the hope that at least one of the arguments will succeed. None of these arguments should be put unless there is good evidence to support them.

The judgement of Lord Justice Mummery in the case of Hawes v Burgess in 2013 in the Court of Appeal is a good reminder that the law in England and Wales is strict: –

“People can make a valid will, even if they are old or infirm or in receipt of help from those whom they wish to benefit, and even if the terms of the will are hurtful, ungrateful or unfair to those whose legitimate expectations of testamentary benefit are disappointed.  The basic legal requirements for validity are that people are mentally capable of understanding what they are doing when they make their will and that what is in the will truly reflects what they freely wish to be done with their estate on their death”.

That’s not to say that undue influence cases can’t succeed – as the case brought by Candice Harrison proves. Secret cameras here secured vital evidence, but they do pose an ethical issue – the Care Quality Commission  gives some helpful advice about the pros and cons of hidden recording equipment. It will be interesting to see if this sort of evidence becomes more prevalent in will dispute cases as technology improves and is more widely available at a relatively low cost.

Sarah Young – Director & Solicitor