fbpx

High Court Declares 'Illiterate' Business Tycoon's £100 Million Will Invalid

23rd March 2022 By

Your assets are your own and, when making your will, you have complete freedom to leave them to whomever you choose. As a case concerning a business tycoon’s £100 million estate showed, however, a will signed without the testator having knowledge and approval of its contents is not worth the paper it is written on.

The businessman’s final will bequeathed 80 per cent of his residuary estate to his youngest daughter. One of his sons and two of his grandchildren, who were major beneficiaries under an earlier will, were all but disinherited. In challenging the final will, the son argued that it did not represent his father’s true wishes.

Ruling on the matter, the High Court rejected claims that the daughter had brought undue influence to bear upon her father. It ruled, however, that his final will was invalid because he neither knew nor approved of its contents.

The Court found that, despite his exceptional business acumen and head for figures, the businessman was quite far along the spectrum towards total illiteracy. He may have recognised simple words, but complicated sentences in the final will would have appeared as a jumble to him. There was no evidence that he read the document before signing it.

No allegations of fraud or dishonesty had been made against the daughter and all the correct formalities had been observed in making the will. There were, however, circumstances – not least the apparent dramatic shift in the businessman’s intentions represented by the final will – that excited the Court’s vigilance.

The Court found on the evidence that the businessman was unaware that his final will – which was executed less than two years after its predecessor – radically changed the beneficiaries of his estate. It was not a valid testamentary document and the Court pronounced in favour of the earlier will.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...