Fraudulent calumny

An 86-year-old testator (Will maker), a long-term live-in carer, and a third party persuading the testator to change her Will came together in a rare case of fraudulent calumny.

The story of Sheila Carter (now deceased), who in addition to suffering from agoraphobia had a pathological fear of being on her own, Shanaz Karim, the carer and beneficiary of Sheila’s Will, and John Quinn, who insinuated himself into Sheila’s life played out between 2006 and 2016 and ended up in the High Court earlier this year.

The case is a rare example of the court concluding that the testator had her mind poisoned against her intended beneficiary, Ms Karim, and had been pressured into making a Will she would not otherwise have made.

Key Facts

  • Sheila Carter died in 2016, aged 87.
  • Ms Karim had provided live-in care for Sheila from 2006 and invested significant funds of her own on improvements to Sheila’s home, including over £80,000 on a loft conversion and new kitchen.
  • In 2011, Sheila and Ms Karim formalised their arrangement via an agreement drafted by solicitors, granting Ms Karim rights to live in the property and securing loans she had made to Sheila.
  • In 2012, Sheila made a Will leaving everything to Ms Karim, in recognition of her care and dedication.
  • On her death, a new Will surfaced, which had been executed in 2015, leaving everything to Mr Quinn, whom Sheila had only met in hospital in 2013. 
  • Since meeting Sheila in 2013 Mr Quinn had insinuated his way into her life; allowed her to believe they would be married (despite him being married already); and convinced her that Ms Karim was trying to poison her and was taking her money.

Grounds for Challenge

Ms Karim challenged the 2015 Will on the following grounds:

  1. Lack of testamentary capacity.
  2. Lack of knowledge and approval.
  3. Undue influence.
  4. Fraudulent calumny.

She represented herself throughout the proceedings.

Court’s Findings

In another rarity, the court felt able to proceed with a trial on written evidence alone. Having considered the evidence, the following findings were made by the judge.

  • Testamentary Capacity: Despite her vulnerabilities, Sheila was found to have capacity at the time of making the 2015 Will, based on medical records and the solicitor’s file.
  • Knowledge and Approval: The judge also found that Sheila understood the contents and effect of the 2015 Will.
  • Undue Influence: The judge however found compelling circumstantial evidence that Mr Quinn exerted pressure on Sheila, who was by then emotionally and physically dependent on him.
  • Fraudulent Calumny: Importantly, the judge concluded that Mr Quinn had made false statements about Ms Karim (e.g., poisoning and financial manipulation) so that Ms Karim was excluded from the 2015 Will and he benefited.

Ms Karim was also pursuing a claim in proprietary estoppel (for a discussion of this type of claim, see here) but the judge did not need to consider that having declared the 2015 Will invalid.

The result: the 2015 Will was struck down and probate granted in respect of the 2012 Will under which Ms Karim benefited from Sheila’s estate. Justice was done.

Conclusions

Successful claims that Wills are invalid by reason of undue influence and fraudulent calumny are few and far between. The courts require compelling evidence. This case is a reassuring example of the court being willing to reach what was clearly the right conclusion. But any claim where there is a suspicion of undue influence or fraudulent calumny must be approached with care and methodical investigation and preparation if they are to succeed. That is where specialist advice from the outset is essential like our Inheritance & Trust Disputes team.