Undue Influence in Oliver v. Oliver: Key Reasons and Evidence from the Court’s Judgment

The case of Oliver v. Oliver provides a textbook example of how courts assess claims of undue influence in probate disputes. William Oliver’s 2015 will, which heavily favoured his eldest son Rodney and effectively disinherited his other children, was challenged on the grounds that Rodney had exercised undue influence over their father. The court found several compelling reasons and pieces of evidence to suggest that undue influence was not only probable but likely to have occurred. Here’s a closer look at why the court came to this conclusion.

1. Isolation and Control Over William

One of the most critical factors in the court’s reasoning was Rodney’s total control over William in the final years of his life. After the death of William’s wife, June, in 2014, William became emotionally and physically dependent on Rodney, who lived with him at the family home, Drakelands. Rodney isolated William from his other children, controlling who had access to him. He even changed William’s phone number and installed screening services to block communication from his siblings.

The court noted that William’s isolation played a crucial role in Rodney’s ability to exert influence over his father. By cutting off William’s other children, Rodney created an environment in which he could control William’s decisions without interference. This isolation is a classic red flag for undue influence, where a dominant figure restricts the testator’s interactions with others.

2. Physical and Emotional Dependency

As William aged, his physical frailty and cognitive decline made him increasingly dependent on Rodney. The court heard evidence that Rodney controlled William’s daily routine, including his diet and medical care. Rodney even stopped William from taking prescribed medication and introduced unorthodox treatments, such as urine therapy and hydrogen peroxide.

William’s physical dependency on Rodney, coupled with emotional vulnerability, created a situation where it was unlikely that William could make independent decisions about his estate. The court emphasised that undue influence often arises where there is a dependent relationship between the testator and the person influencing them.

3. Rodney’s Dominance in Financial Matters

Rodney’s control extended beyond William’s personal care to his financial affairs. Rodney scrutinised the family company’s accounts and made unsubstantiated allegations of financial misconduct against his brothers, Andrew and Kevin, which William accepted without question. William’s belief in these allegations played a significant role in his decision to exclude Andrew and Kevin from the will.

The court found that William’s acceptance of Rodney’s accusations, without any independent investigation, indicated that Rodney had a strong hold over his father’s views. This dominance over financial matters further supported the claim of undue influence, as William was not acting based on independent judgment.

4. William’s Personality Change and Passive Role

Witnesses, including William’s other children, testified that William’s personality had changed dramatically after Rodney began living with him. Once a decisive and organised man, William became passive, deferring entirely to Rodney’s decisions. During a family meeting about the business, William, who would have once led the discussion, remained silent with his head bowed, letting Rodney speak for him.

This change in behaviour was seen by the court as a clear indication that William’s will had been overborne. The court noted that undue influence often manifests in the form of the testator becoming increasingly passive, allowing the influencer to dominate decision-making processes.

5. The 2015 Will’s Unusual Terms

The 2015 will, drafted with Rodney’s input, was another crucial piece of evidence. It not only disinherited William’s other children but placed Rodney in complete control of the estate through a discretionary trust. Rodney was the sole primary beneficiary and had the power to decide whether any of his siblings would receive anything.

The court found this arrangement suspicious, especially given William’s earlier wills, which had treated all of his children equally. The drastic shift in the 2015 will’s terms, combined with Rodney’s control over its drafting and execution, raised strong concerns about undue influence.

6. The Role of the Solicitor and Medical Evidence

Solicitor Stephen Haggett, who drafted the 2015 will, expressed concern about Rodney’s presence during meetings with William. In his notes, Haggett mentioned that Rodney’s involvement “creates some suspicion” and recommended that William’s capacity be confirmed by his GP. While William’s GP did confirm his mental capacity, the absence of a thorough cognitive assessment left the door open for questions about the influence Rodney may have had over the final decisions.

The court found that while the GP’s capacity report was a factor, it was not enough to overcome the overwhelming evidence of Rodney’s undue influence. The solicitor’s initial concerns, coupled with the GP’s lack of a detailed cognitive examination, added weight to the claim that Rodney had manipulated William into making the will in his favour.

Learning Points

For practitioners, this case underscores the importance of:

- Recognising red flags of dependency and isolation;

- Thoroughly investigating changes in will provisions;

- Ensuring independent legal advice and medical assessments are obtained;

- Scrutinising the role of possible influencers when taking will instructions;

- Understanding the broader family dynamics.

By applying these learning points, probate practitioners can better navigate will disputes and help clients avoid costly, emotionally charged litigation over undue influence.