Background
Mark Briant died in October 2022, survived by his wife Rosemary Elliott, who had dementia, and adult children from a prior relationship. After Mark, then 92 and living with Parkinson’s disease, moved to the home of his daughter Vanessa Bateson and her husband Ian, he instructed solicitors to prepare a new will. His earlier intended mirror will with Rosemary had contemplated substantial provision for her.
The 2022 will divided Mark’s estate broadly equally between Rosemary and Vanessa’s family. But Rosemary’s half was placed in a life interest trust: she could receive income only, while Vanessa was the ultimate beneficiary of the capital. Rosemary challenged the will for want of knowledge and approval and undue influence, and alternatively sought reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The Court’s Holding
HHJ Michael Berkley held that Mark did not know and approve the life interest trust provisions. Although Mark had testamentary capacity and the will was solicitor-prepared and duly executed, the solicitor had introduced the trust rather than Mark. The judge found that Mark was told Rosemary would have “access” to the funds, but was not adequately told that she had no entitlement to the capital and that any capital payment would depend on Vanessa giving up part of her prospective inheritance.
The court held that the defendants had not proved that this material restriction reflected Mark’s testamentary intentions. It severed the trust wording from the gift, so that Mark’s 50% share passes to Rosemary absolutely. The undue influence claim failed: while there was circumstantial evidence raising concern, the court found reasonable alternative explanations and did not regard coercion as proved. No separate award was made under the 1975 Act because the probate relief gave Rosemary all she could have obtained under that claim.
Key Takeaways
- A professionally drafted and executed will can still fail in part where the testator did not understand a significant provision added by the solicitor.
- A life interest in a cash fund is materially different from an outright gift: income alone does not give the beneficiary a right to capital.
- Undue influence in testamentary cases requires convincing proof of coercion; suspicion, opportunity and benefit are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underlines the need for solicitors to explain and record the practical consequences of trust provisions, especially where a proposed trust departs from an elderly or vulnerable testator’s original instructions. Describing a beneficiary as having “access” to a fund may be seriously misleading if the will gives only an income interest.
It also illustrates the court’s ability to admit a will to probate with a self-contained invalid provision removed, preserving the testator’s intended gift while excising the restriction that was not known and approved.