'Mother was not fit to sign will', argues spurned daughter

An only child has contested the validity of her parents’ will after their entire £2.34m estate was left to the RSPCA.

Dr Christine Gill launched her legal battle in July last year upon discovering her parents’ 287-acre Yorkshire estate had been left to the animal charity. But the university lecturer believes her mother was forcibly coerced into signing her will by her controlling father.

During High Court hearings in Leeds, Judge James Allen QC heard how Dr Gill had looked after her parents and their estate for 30 years leading up to their deaths. She maintains that assurances regarding her inheritance of the estate were constantly offered.

The court was also told how Dr Gill’s mother suffered from agoraphobia and occasional panic disorders, whilst continually dependent on her husband’s actions to survive.

Their daughter is now challenging the validity of the will, as English case law states that a testator must have had the necessary mental capacity when legally signing away the provision of their estate.

Psychiatrists have agreed with Dr Gill’s suspicions, and believe Mrs Gill would have struggled to make many independent decisions. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 states:

“A person lacks capacity in relation to a matter of fact if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself. . . . . because of an impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”

However, experts have challenged Dr Gill’s assumptions on her mother’s mental health, admitting she was eccentric but not necessarily impaired.

A judgement will be handed down later this week.

Jenny Bruce, a solicitor with Birkett Long’s Personal Tax Trusts and Probate Team in Chelmsford, commented ‘The High Court has ruled in Dr Gill’s favour. It is difficult to assess the significance of the decision until the full judgement becomes available. None the less the case would appear to have been decided on one of two grounds. Either that Mrs Gill did not satisfy the legal test for capacity to make a will or that she was subject to undue influence by her late husband to make it. The latter ground would seem somewhat surprising considering that Mrs Gill survived her husband by seven years and had all that time to make changes whilst free from his influence. The case is potentially very significant for charities that rely on legacies to survive. It also highlights the importance of taking expert legal advice when making a will and discussing your intentions with family.’