What is Undue Influence? Unmasking the “Wound Up” Will

Contact Us

contact

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

Undue influence in probate occurs when a testator’s free will is “overborne” by another person, resulting in a Will that does not reflect their true intentions. Unlike lack of capacity, the testator knows what they are signing, but their decision is coerced, manipulated, or fraudulently induced. Proving it requires demonstrating actual coercion, as mere persuasion or kindness is insufficient.

undue influence

Undue Influence: The Skeptic’s Ultimate Test of Authenticity

For “The Skeptic,” undue influence is often the last, most elusive piece of the puzzle. The testator may appear rational, even articulate, yet the Will’s provisions are inexplicable. This is where we stop looking at the testator and start looking at the influencer.

As a validity specialists, we understand that undue influence is about control, not confusion. It’s about someone so dominating the testator’s mind that their Will is no longer their Will.

Defining “Undue Influence” in UK Law: More Than Mere Persuasion

The legal bar for proving undue influence is exceptionally high. The challenger must prove “coercion”, that the testator’s free will was overborne. This doesn’t mean physical violence; it can be subtle, psychological pressure.

The key distinction:

  • Permissible Persuasion: “You should leave me something, I’ve always been good to you.” (Generally allowed).
  • Undue Influence: “If you don’t change your Will to give me everything, I will put you in a home/never speak to you again/tell everyone your secret.” (Coercion).

The legal precedent from Hall v Hall (1868) states, “To make a good Will, a man must be a free agent.” Our job is to prove that freedom was stolen.

The Evidentiary Challenge: Proving the “Unprovable”

Unlike lack of capacity (which relies on medical evidence), undue influence is almost always proven circumstantially. The “influencer” rarely leaves a paper trail.

We meticulously build a case by looking for patterns and unexplained shifts:

  • “Smoking Gun” Behavior: Sudden isolation of the testator from other family.
  • Unusual Secrecy: The new Will is drafted in secret, often with a new solicitor.
  • Radical Departure: Disinheritance of long-term beneficiaries without clear, rational explanation.
  • Dependence: The testator was highly dependent on the influencer for care, finances, or social interaction.

This is a forensic investigation into human relationships.

The “Susceptibility” Factor: Was the Testator Vulnerable?

While undue influence is about the influencer’s actions, the testator’s vulnerability is a critical component. We look for:

  • Physical or Mental Frailty: An elderly testator, suffering from depression, grief, or early-stage dementia, is more susceptible. (Note: This is not a lack of capacity, but a heightened vulnerability to pressure).
  • Emotional Dependence: A testator recently bereaved or profoundly lonely.
  • Financial Dependence: The influencer controls the testator’s bank accounts or daily expenses.

The more susceptible the testator, the less overt the coercion needs to be.

Identifying the “Manipulator’s Playbook”: Common Tactics

Manipulators often follow a pattern. We look for:

  • Isolation: The influencer systematically prevents other family members from seeing or speaking to the testator. Phone calls go unanswered; visits are blocked.
  • Gaslighting: Making the testator doubt their own memory or sanity, often undermining trust in others.
  • Fear and Threats: Implied or explicit threats of abandonment, institutionalization, or revealing embarrassing secrets.
  • False Accusations: Spreading lies about other beneficiaries to poison the testator’s affections.
  • Creating a “Crisis”: Exaggerating the testator’s needs or the failures of others to create an urgent need for the influencer’s intervention.

The “Solicitor’s Duty”: Red Flags Missed

Even when a solicitor drafts the Will, they can be an unwitting participant in undue influence. Our investigation focuses on whether the solicitor:

  • Met the Testator Alone: Crucial to ensure no one was “hovering” during instructions.
  • Asked Open-Ended Questions: To gauge true intent, not just “yes/no” answers to leading questions.
  • Followed the Golden Rule: If the testator was vulnerable due to age/illness, a medical assessment should have been sought (linking back to Cluster 2).
  • Noted Any Suspicions: A diligent solicitor would document concerns about a dominant companion or unusual instructions.

If these duties were not met, the solicitor’s file becomes a key piece of evidence.

Lodging a Caveat: Halting the Influencer’s Next Move

If you suspect undue influence, the immediate action is to lodge a Caveat with the Probate Registry. This prevents the Grant of Probate from being issued, halting the distribution of assets and giving us time to gather evidence. This stops the “influencer” from liquidating assets and making the problem irreversible.

Financial Abuse as a Precursor to Undue Influence

Often, financial abuse is the “training ground” for undue influence. If the influencer already controlled the testator’s finances, had access to bank accounts, or exerted pressure over daily spending, it establishes a pattern of dominance that makes proving undue influence more straightforward. We meticulously trace financial transactions to demonstrate this pattern of control.

For further understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults, you can refer to the Office of the Public Guardian’s guidance on financial abuse. Additionally, a deeper dive into the legal principles can be found in academic papers accessible via legal databases, often referencing key cases on undue influence.

Reclaiming the True Will

Undue influence is a dark corner of probate, but it is not unassailable. For “The Skeptic” who sees a Will that simply doesn’t make sense given the testator’s lifetime relationships, our role is to shine a light on the unseen manipulation. We fight to ensure the deceased’s true last wishes are honored, not those of a dominant third party.

The Doctrine of “Fraudulent Calumny”

While many are familiar with the concept of coercion through force, a more insidious form of undue influence is known in UK law as Fraudulent Calumny. This occurs when a person “poisons” the testator’s mind by casting dishonest aspersions on the character of a natural beneficiary.

One of the strongest indicators of undue influence is the role the beneficiary played in the mechanics of the Will’s creation. As “The Skeptic,” we ask: Who chose the solicitor? Who transported the testator to the meeting? Who paid the legal fees? In many contested cases, we find that the influencer “vetted” the solicitor or sat in the waiting room during the meeting. We treat this as Third-Party Facilitation, which creates a “suspicious cloud” over the document. If the beneficiary was the primary point of contact for the law firm, it suggests the solicitor was receiving a “filtered” version of the testator’s wishes. We use these procedural overlaps to argue that the solicitor was never truly in a position to verify the testator’s independence, effectively neutralizing the solicitor’s testimony.Unlike simple coercion, the testator is not forced into signing; rather, they are systematically lied to until they choose to disinherit someone based on a false reality. As a Validity Specialist, we look for evidence of these “whispering campaigns.” If we can prove that the beneficiary made false claims about you to the deceased, and that those claims were the sole reason for your disinheritance, the Will can be set aside as a product of fraud.

The “Nodal Point” of Influence: Identifying the Tipping Point

In complex litigation, we look for the “Nodal Point”, the specific moment when a testator’s susceptibility met an influencer’s opportunity. This often occurs during a period of “transient vulnerability,” such as immediately following a hospital discharge or the death of a long-term spouse. At this point, the influencer doesn’t need to use overt threats; they simply use “excessive persistence” at a time when the testator lacks the emotional energy to resist.

We analyze the timeline of the Will’s creation against the testator’s medical and personal history. If the Will was changed during a window of extreme grief or physical weakness, the “presumption of free will” is significantly compromised, allowing us to argue that the document is a reflection of the influencer’s persistence rather than the testator’s preference.

The Forensic Analysis of “Third-Party Facilitation”

One of the strongest indicators of undue influence is the role the beneficiary played in the mechanics of the Will’s creation. As “The Skeptic,” we ask: Who chose the solicitor? Who transported the testator to the meeting? Who paid the legal fees? In many contested cases, we find that the influencer “vetted” the solicitor or sat in the waiting room during the meeting.

We treat this as Third-Party Facilitation, which creates a “suspicious cloud” over the document. If the beneficiary was the primary point of contact for the law firm, it suggests the solicitor was receiving a “filtered” version of the testator’s wishes. We use these procedural overlaps to argue that the solicitor was never truly in a position to verify the testator’s independence, effectively neutralizing the solicitor’s testimony.

Let’s Do This Together

Contesting a will could become an overwhelming experience if not accompanied by expert guidance and support. Our mission is to provide you with all the needed information, support, and authority to get through this journey, with only one goal in mind: Justice.

To our team, this process is not about winning; it’s about claiming what was yours from the beginning.

Get your free, no-obligation case assessment. Call 08002980029 or visit contestawilltoday.com

Don’t forget to check our Complete Guide to Lack of Capacity for more in-depth information.

FAQs

Q1: Can undue influence be proven if the testator had full mental capacity?

Absolutely. Undue influence is entirely distinct from lack of capacity. A testator can be mentally sharp but still have their free will overborne by threats, constant badgering, or extreme emotional pressure. The focus is on the influencer’s actions, not the testator’s cognitive ability.

Q2: What kind of evidence is needed to prove undue influence?

Since direct evidence is rare, we rely on circumstantial evidence. This includes witness statements from family or friends about isolation, changes in the testator’s personality, unusual financial transactions, discrepancies between the testator’s stated intentions and the final Will, and the solicitor’s attendance notes. A consistent pattern of manipulative behavior is key.

Q3: Is kindness or caregiving considered undue influence?

No, not typically. Simply being kind, providing care, or even actively persuading a testator (without coercion) to change their Will is usually considered legitimate interaction. The line is crossed when the influence becomes so strong that the testator’s own wishes are completely suppressed, and they are left with no genuine choice but to comply. It’s the difference between suggestion and subjugation.

contact

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

Frequently asked questions.

Disputes over wills can arise in several circumstances, including:

  • Testamentary capacity: The person who made the will (known as the testator) must have had the mental capacity to understand what they were doing and the consequences of their actions. This means that they must have been able to understand the nature and extent of their property, the people they were giving their property to, and the people they were excluded from their will.

 

  • Valid execution: The will must have been executed correctly under the law. This means it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • Undue influence: The testator must have made the will freely and without any pressure from others. The will may be invalid if someone was unduly influenced to make a will. Undue influence can occur when someone takes advantage of a testator’s vulnerability, such as if the testator is elderly, ill, or has a mental disability.

 

  • Fraud or forgery: If the will was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will, the will may be invalid.

 

Claims against a will must usually be made within six months of the grant of probate being issued. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate. If a claim is not made within this time, it may be too late to challenge the will.

As such, executors often wait until this six-month period has expired before distributing the estate. This is to avoid having to distribute the estate and then having to take it back if a successful claim is made against the will.

Here are some examples of how these disputes can arise:

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will. For example, if the testator was suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease at the time the will was made.
  •  

A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was not executed correctly. For example, if the will is not signed by the testator or if it is not witnessed by two independent witnesses.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that they were unduly influenced to make the will. For example, if a caregiver or another family member pressured the testator to make the will in their favour.

 

  • A family member may dispute a will if they believe that it was forged or if someone fraudulently induced the testator to make the will. For example, if someone forged the testator’s signature on the will or if someone lied to the testator about the contents of the will.

If you are thinking about disputing a will, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.



Types of Trusts

Many different types of trusts can be set up, depending on your specific needs and goals. Some of the most common types of trusts include:
Bare Trusts: A bare trust is a simple type of trust in which the trustee holds the assets for the benefit of the beneficiary. The beneficiary is entitled to the income and capital of the trust as soon as they are old enough to receive them.

Interest in Possession Trusts: An interest in possession trust is a type of trust in which the beneficiary is entitled to the income from the trust immediately, but not to the capital until a later date. This type of trust is often used for minor beneficiaries or for beneficiaries who are not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

Discretionary Trusts: A discretionary trust is a type of trust in which the trustee has the discretion to decide how and when to distribute the income and capital of the trust to the beneficiaries. This type of trust is often used for families with multiple beneficiaries or beneficiaries with special needs.

Accumulation Trusts: An accumulation trust is a type of trust in which the income from the trust is accumulated and not distributed to the beneficiaries until a later date. This type of trust is often used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

Mixed Trusts: A mixed trust is a type of trust that combines elements of different types of trusts. For example, a trust may be a discretionary trust for one beneficiary and an interest in possession trust for another beneficiary.

Settlor-Interested Trusts: A settlor-interested trust is a type of trust in which the settlor (the person who creates the trust) retains some interest in the trust assets. For example, the settlor may retain the right to receive income from the trust or to appoint the trustee.

Non-Resident Trusts: A non-resident trust is a type of trust that is created and governed by the laws of a country other than the country where the settlor or beneficiaries reside.
Which type of trust is right for you will depend on your specific needs and goals. It is important to consult with an estate planning attorney to discuss your options and choose the type of trust that is best for you.
Here are some examples of how different types of trusts can be used:
A bare trust can be used to hold assets for a minor child until they reach the age of majority.

An interest in possession trust can be used to provide income to a beneficiary who is not yet responsible enough to manage their own money.

A discretionary trust can be used to manage assets for a family with multiple beneficiaries or for beneficiaries with special needs.

An accumulation trust can be used to save for a specific purpose, such as a child’s education or a retirement fund.

A mixed trust can be used to achieve a variety of different goals, such as providing income to one beneficiary and preserving capital for another beneficiary.

A settlor-interested trust can be used to retain some control over trust assets after the settlor has created the trust.

A non-resident trust can be used to reduce estate taxes or to protect assets from creditors.
It is important to note that this is just a brief overview of the different types of trusts. There are many other types of trusts available, and each type of trust has its own specific features and benefits. For more information please visit www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/types-of-trust

Inheritance trust disputes can be complex and varied, but some common scenarios include:

  • Disputes over the validity of the trust: This can happen if the settlor (the person who created the trust) does not have the mental capacity to create a trust, or if the trust deed was not executed correctly.

 

  • Disputes over the interpretation of the trust deed: If the trust deed is poorly drafted or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • Disputes over the appointment or removal of trustees: Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee is not acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may apply to the court to have the trustee removed.

 

  • Disputes over the investment of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to invest trust assets prudently. If a trustee makes investments that are too risky or that lose money, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

  • Disputes over the distribution of trust assets: Trustees have a legal duty to distribute trust assets to the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. If a trustee distributes trust assets incorrectly, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of duty.

 

Here are some specific examples of inheritance trust disputes that have occurred in the UK:

  • In one case, a beneficiary disputed the validity of a trust deed on the grounds that the settlor (the person who created the trust) did not have the mental capacity to create a trust at the time it was set up.

 

  • In another case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees made a number of risky investments that lost money.



  • In a third case, a beneficiary sued the trustees for breach of duty after the trustees distributed trust assets to the beneficiaries in a way that was not in accordance with the terms of the trust deed.

 

Other possible disputes include:

  • A beneficiary was expecting more than what is set out in the trust document. This may be because the beneficiary had a reasonable belief that they would receive more, or because the trust document is unclear about the beneficiary’s entitlement.

 

  • The individual who set up the trust was provided with negligent or misleading advice. If the settlor was not properly advised about the consequences of setting up a trust, or if they were given incorrect information, they may be able to challenge the trust.

 

  • The trust document is either incomplete or unclear about the wishes of the deceased. If the trust document is incomplete or unclear, it can lead to disputes between the trustees and beneficiaries about how the trust should be administered.

 

  • A trustee acts against the best interests of the beneficiary or doesn’t administer the trust correctly. Trustees have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If a trustee breaches their duty, the beneficiaries may sue the trustee.

If you are involved in an inheritance trust dispute, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

Contesting a will is challenging the validity of a will. This can be done on a number of grounds, including.

  • The testator (the person who made the will) did not have the mental capacity to make a will.
  • The will was not executed correctly, i.e., it was not signed by the testator or witnessed by two independent witnesses.
  • The testator was unduly influenced to make the will.
  • The will was forged or fraudulent.

 

Contentious probate is any dispute about the administration of a deceased person’s estate. This can include disputes about

  • The validity of the will.
  • The interpretation of the will.
  • The appointment or removal of executors.
  • The distribution of the estate assets.
  • The management of the estate.
  • In the UK, contentious probate is dealt with by the High Court.

 

The main difference between contesting a will and contentious probate is that contesting a will is specifically challenging the validity of the will, while contentious probate can include a wide range of disputes about the administration of an estate.

Here is an example:

Contesting a will: A beneficiary challenges the validity of a will on the grounds that the testator did not have the mental capacity to make a will.

Contentious probate: A beneficiary disputes the interpretation of a will and argues that they are entitled to a larger share of the estate than they have been given.

It is important to note that the two terms are often used interchangeably. For example, a lawyer might say that they are “dealing with a contentious probate matter” when they are actually challenging the validity of a will.

If you are thinking about contesting a will or pursuing a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. We can assess your case and advise you on your legal options.

The time limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK is six months from the grant of probate. This is the legal document that gives the executor the authority to administer the estate.

If you do not make your claim within this six-month time limit, you may need to apply to the court for permission to make a late claim. The court will only grant permission if you have a good reason for not making your claim on time.

There are a number of factors that the court will consider when deciding whether to grant permission for a late claim, including:

  • Why did you not make your claim on time?
  • The strength of your case.
  • Whether the other beneficiaries will be prejudiced if your claim is allowed to proceed.
  • If the court grants you permission to make a late claim, you will need to file your claim within 28 days.

 

It is important to note that there are some exceptions to the six-month time limit. For example, if the executor has committed fraud or concealed assets from the beneficiaries, the beneficiaries may be able to make a claim after the six-month time limit has expired.

If you are thinking about making a contentious probate claim, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible. A lawyer can assess your case and advise you on the time limits that apply and whether you have a good case.

Here are some examples of when you might be able to make a late contentious probate claim:

  • You were not aware of the death of the deceased until after the six-month time limit had expired.
  • You were unable to make your claim on time because you were ill or incapacitated.
  • The executor has deliberately concealed information from you about the estate.
  • The executor has committed fraud in the administration of the estate.

 

The 12-year limit for making a contentious probate claim in the UK applies to claims for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. This means that if you are making a claim for financial provision from an estate, you must do so within 12 years of the date of the deceased’s death.

The reason for the 12-year limit is to encourage people to make their claims as soon as possible after the deceased’s death. This is because it can become more difficult to investigate and prove a claim after a long period of time has elapsed.

If you are unsure whether you are able to make a late contentious probate claim, you should seek legal advice.

Most disputes in the UK are resolved out of court through mediation and negotiation. This is because it is generally faster, cheaper, and less stressful for all involved.

If you are considering disputing a will, it is important to contact a contentious probate specialist before you involve any other relatives or beneficiaries of the estate. A specialist lawyer can advise you on your legal options and help you to resolve the dispute quickly and efficiently.

Here are some of the benefits of resolving a will dispute out of court:

  • It is faster and cheaper than going to court.
  • It is less stressful for all involved.
  • It allows you to maintain relationships with other family members and beneficiaries.
  • You have more control over the outcome of the dispute.

 

There are a number of steps that you can take to try to resolve a contentious probate dispute without going to court, including

  • Negotiation: You can try to negotiate a settlement with the other parties to the dispute. This may involve making concessions on your part, but it can be a good way to avoid the time and expense of court proceedings.
  • Mediation: Mediation is a process where an independent mediator helps the parties to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Mediation can be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court, but it is important to note that it is not binding on the parties.
  • Arbitration: Arbitration is a more formal process than mediation, and it is binding on the parties. However, it can still be a good way to resolve a dispute without going to court.

 

If you are unable to resolve the dispute amicably, you will need to file a claim with the High Court. The court will then hold a hearing to decide the case.

Contact our Team

For a free initial conversation call

0800 29 800 29

email Us

News and Insights