The Will of a man who experienced ‘paranoid delusions’ has been deemed invalid by the High Court after it was revealed that his solicitor had not carried sufficient checks regarding his testamentary capacity.
The ruling in Boast v Ballardi & Ors rejected a Will made by Edward Smith in 2013, following a claim made by his nephew, Gavin Boast. A previous Will made in 2006 will now apply and Mr Boast, who was its sole executor and beneficiary, will inherit the entirety of Mr Smith’s estate, including a property and savings of around £140,000.
In the 2013 Will, Mr Smith had expressed significantly different wishes regarding the distribution of his estate, with a sum of only £15,000 being left to Mr Boast and the residuary estate being held in trust for his sisters.
Mr Smith’s previously close relationship with his nephew deteriorated in the year prior the making of the second Will. This coincided with period during which his GP had noted that Mr Smith had expressed ‘increasingly confused, paranoid ideas’ and soon after, in March 2012, Mr Smith notified his solicitors of his decision to cancel his existing Will and create a new one.
Aware that Mr Smith had been diagnosed with dementia, his solicitor contacted the GP and was told that Mr Smith was unlikely to have or regain the testamentary capacity required to make a new Will.
Despite receiving a letter from Mr Smith only a few months later in which he questioned his personal freedom and expressed concerns that Mr Boast’s partner might take all his assets, the solicitor appears to have accepted that Mr Smith retained testamentary capacity. The Court found that the solicitor had not sufficiently investigated the impact of the Mr Smith’s paranoid delusions on his decisions regarding his Will and failed to ensure that he received a medical assessment before drafting the 2013 version.
Although solicitors are not responsible for conducting a medical assessment of a client who intends to make a Will, this case highlights that they should take the necessary steps to refer the matter to a medical professional if they are concerned that testamentary capacity is compromised, thereby reducing the possibility of a future legal challenge.
The master added: ‘Mr Margarson, having become aware of the deceased’s paranoid delusions, did not investigate whether they were capable of affecting his testamentary decisions, either by asking further questions, or by instructing a qualified medical practitioner to assess this. Indeed, although Mr Margarson seems to have considered that the deceased should be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner before making the 2013 will, he did not ensure this was done.’
