The High Court has upheld the validity of a codicil to a woman’s will which left the family farm to her two daughters and dismissed claims by her grandsons that she had promised the farm to them.
The woman had passed away in 2020 at the age of 96. A will she had made in 2006 left the residue of her estate, including the farm, to her two daughters. She had made a codicil in 2011 leaving the farm to her grandsons, but had subsequently made another codicil in 2016 revoking the earlier codicil and reverting to the 2006 will.
The grandsons sought to set aside the 2016 codicil on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval and/or undue influence. They also brought a claim based on proprietary estoppel, asserting that their grandmother had promised that the farm would be left to them and that, in reliance on that promise, they had suffered detriment in that they had worked for free on the farm and given up opportunities to work elsewhere.
The solicitor who had drawn up the 2016 codicil had acted for the woman for nearly a decade at the time, and the Court observed there would be no reason for him to accept testamentary instructions from someone who might lack capacity. He had referred to her capacity in his attendance notes and had not had any concerns. The Court found that she had had capacity to make the 2016 codicil.
The attendance notes also showed that the woman had remained uncomfortable about the 2011 codicil and its unfairness to one side of the family. In executing the 2016 codicil she had reverted to strict equality, as she could not reconcile the unfairness to her younger daughter’s family of giving her main asset to the other side of the family. It was plain that her solicitor had been satisfied that she understood what she had decided. The attendance notes demonstrated that she had known and approved the contents of the 2016 codicil. The Court also dismissed the claim that the 2016 codicil had been procured by undue influence, finding that there was no evidence at all of the exercise of coercion or undue influence.
Turning to the proprietary estoppel claim, the Court found that the woman had made no clear and unequivocal representations or assurances that she would leave the farm to her grandsons. Even if she had, they had not proved that they had relied on them, nor that they had suffered a detriment. Their claim was dismissed.