Last updated on January 11th, 2024 at 10:56 am
Laurą Cowan, head of Graysons’ private client team
The case, which is rare and only the third of its kind since 2007, is one of fraudulent calumny, in which a person poisons the mind of the testator such that they do not leave an inheritance to someone who would otherwise be a natural beneficiary. The alleged perpetrator must either know that their aspersions are false or not care whether they are true or false. Fraudulent calumny differs from undue influence in which the testator is coerced, and their own judgement and wishes are overpowered.
Gerald Whittle died on 7 December 2016, just three weeks after making a will that left everything to his daughter, Sonia, and her partner – apart from old cars and the contents of a garage and shed, which were left to his son David on the proviso that David cleared out the garage and shed.
Sonia did not even tell her brother that his father had died, and David did not find out until around two months later, after much research.
The will was executed by a trainee legal executive who attended Gerald’s home. It appointed Sonia and her partner as joint executors. As well as other aspersions, Sonia told the trainee legal executive that David and his wife, Julie, were ‘psychopaths and criminals’ and that they had stolen a large sum of money from Julie`s mother.
In May 2017, David entered a caveat against the estate – effectively stopping Sonia and Ray from obtaining probate and thus carrying out the bequests in the will. In April 2020 David challenged the validity of the will on the grounds that it was procured by undue influence and fraudulent calumny.
David claimed that Sonia had told her father that he:
- had stolen Gerald’s antiques and classic cars (when, in fact, Sonia had auctioned these things off herself to frame her brother)
- was a violent man and had assaulted women
- had committed criminal damage
- was living off the immoral earnings of a prostitute (his wife)
- had been to his father’s home whilst he was in hospital to find bank account details and PINs
The case was heard at the High Court in 2022. Sonia and her partner denied fraudulent calumny, saying that everything they had said was true, but Sonia did admit to making the negative comments in front of a legal executive, and that she was present at her father’s home when the legal executive attended, but she had left the room whilst instructions were given. David told the court that he had had a good relationship with his father and had visited him regularly.
In the end, Sonia and her partner did not attend the trial as they were debarred by the judge as they had not responded to requests for information and had not paid a costs order. The trial went ahead based on written evidence only. This meant that only David and his wife were able to provide witness statements. David’s statement provided a letter from Thames Valley Police confirming that Sonia’s previous allegations of criminal damage were not substantiated and resulted in no charges. He also provided evidence of his pre-retirement security vetting by Atomic Energy. David’s wife’s testimony was that she had never known him to be a violent or criminal man.
The judge decided that Sonia and her partner’s aspersions as to David’s character were completely false and there was no evidence to show that they believed them to be true. He ruled that David had successfully proven fraudulent calumny and that the will was not valid. As such, Gerald had died intestate and so his estate was distributed according to the rules of intestacy and David was granted letters of administration.
Laura Cowan, head of Graysons’ private client team says:
“This is a sad case of a father who died thinking the worst of his son because his daughter’s greed had led her to lie about her brother, thus poisoning her father’s mind. Elderly and sick people can be vulnerable to such persuasion – even when they are sound of mind – as this man was, particularly when it is given in the drip, drip format as in this case.”
Laura is a full member of Solicitors for the Elderly and specialises in older client care. She will provide independent, confidential advice and has a wealth of experience and training that will help put elderly and vulnerable people at ease when dealing with issues such as making a will or a power of attorney.
