Validity of wills and codicils - Duress, undue influence, and mistake

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Understanding the validity of wills and codicils is essential in testamentary law, with duress, undue influence, and mistake posing major challenges to testamentary freedom. For SQE1 FLK2 exam candidates, a clear understanding of these factors is vital. This article offers a detailed examination of how these issues can invalidate a will or codicil, while exploring relevant case law, statutory provisions, and their practical effects in modern legal practice.

Duress in Testamentary Context

In wills and codicils, duress refers to undue pressure on a testator, forcing them to change their wishes. The legal standard for proving duress is high, showing the importance of testamentary freedom.

Legal Framework

To establish duress, the following must be demonstrated:

  1. Unwarranted pressure or coercion
  2. A link between the pressure and the testamentary decision
  3. No practical alternatives for the testator

Case Law Analysis

In Hall v Hall (1868) LR 1 P & D 481, it was established that duress must destroy the free will of the testator to invalidate a will. Mere persuasion is not enough; coercion must be present.

In Re Brocklehurst's Estate [1978] Ch 14, the court ruled that threats to reveal embarrassing information did not constitute duress as they did not overpower the testator's decision-making.

Practical Considerations

Legal professionals should closely examine the circumstances of the will's execution to identify duress. Indicators include:

  • Sudden changes to testamentary plans
  • Evidence of threats or coercion
  • Testator's isolation from family or advisors

Undue Influence in Will-Making

Undue influence involves pressure from someone trusted, often more psychological than overt. Unlike duress, it can be less obvious but still manipulative.

Legal Principles

The case Williams v Goude (1828) 1 Hag Ecc 577 established undue influence must overpower the testator's will without shaping their judgment. Key elements include:

  1. Influence must surpass mere persuasion
  2. The will must not reflect the testator's true wishes
  3. The burden of proof lies on the accuser

Presumption of Undue Influence

Testamentary cases lack the presumption of undue influence found in contract law. This was confirmed in Re Goods of Bate (1947) 2 All ER 418, with the responsibility to prove undue influence resting on the accuser.

Evidential Challenges

Proving undue influence can be tough due to its subtle nature. Courts look at:

  • Testator's vulnerability (age, illness, dependence)
  • Relationship with alleged influencer
  • Involvement of the influencer in will-making
  • Unexplained changes in testamentary intentions

Case Study: Re Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch)

The court found undue influence when a caregiver isolated and persuaded an elderly testator to change her will. Witness testimony and circumstantial evidence were important in this case.

Mistake in Wills and Codicils

Mistakes can range from drafting errors to misunderstandings about a will's content. The law balances honoring testators' intentions with maintaining legal clarity.

Types of Mistakes

  1. Execution errors: Mistakes in formal will requirements
  2. Content errors: Errors in the will’s substance
  3. Belief errors: Testators' misunderstandings about facts or law

Statutory Intervention

The Administration of Justice Act 1982, Section 20, allows rectification of certain will mistakes. Courts may correct a will failing to reflect the testator’s intentions due to:

  • Clerical errors
  • Misunderstandings of instructions

Case Law Developments

Marley v Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2 widened the rectification scope under Section 20, including drafting mistakes. In Re Segelman [1996] Ch 171, a will was rectified based on a testator’s false belief.

Overlapping Issues

These concepts can intertwine in practice, requiring careful analysis. A complex case might involve elements of all three factors.

Case Study: Re D (Deceased) [2016] EWHC 2899 (Ch)

This case involved accusations of undue influence and mistake. Though undue influence wasn't found, a mistake regarding the will's effects led to partial rectification.

Practical Applications for Legal Practitioners

To prevent invalidation due to duress, undue influence, or mistake, professionals should consider these measures:

  1. Independent Legal Advice: Encourage advice from an impartial solicitor to reduce undue influence risks.
  2. Clear Language: Use straightforward language to prevent misunderstandings.
  3. Neutral Witnesses: Use neutral witnesses for will execution to verify authenticity.
  4. Thorough Documentation: Keep detailed records of the drafting process for defense against claims.
  5. Client Interviews: Conduct detailed interviews to understand intentions and potential vulnerabilities.

Exam Focus for SQE1 FLK2

For exam preparation, candidates should:

  1. Understand legal criteria: Know the tests for duress, undue influence, and mistake.
  2. Practice scenario analysis: Apply concepts to complex scenarios and evaluate evidence.
  3. Consider proof difficulties: Think about how these issues are proven in court with limited evidence.
  4. Learn about outcomes: Know possible results, such as invalidation or rectification.
  5. Recognize preventative steps: Understand how to safeguard against these issues when advising on wills.

Conclusion

The notions of duress, undue influence, and mistake are key in validating wills and codicils. By understanding these principles and implementing preventative strategies, legal practitioners can ensure that testamentary documents reflect the true desires of the testator, providing peace of mind and reducing the risk of challenges.