THE DANGER OF PRODUCING NO OR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN A WILL CONTEST OR WILL DISPUTE CLAIM

25 July 2025 1:33 am

Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, consider how dangerous it can be if the Will propounder produces no evidence at all to prove the Will is legally valid

Will Contested and Set Aside: Lessons from Hibbert v Rignall [2024] WTLR 1275

Background: A Will Made in Confusion and Isolation
Betty Rignall died in March 2020, aged 93. Her 14 December 2006 will had (inter alia) divided her residuary estate equally between her children or their issue. On 13 October 2017 a Codicil was signed, the effect of which was to prevent any of her children who predeceased from inheriting. But on 16 January 2018, Betty signed a new will—the Disputed Will—leaving everything to one of her two daughters, Rosemary Rignall.

This drastic change prompted a will contest by Ruth Hibbert, Betty’s other daughter. Ruth had expected to inherit under the original will and believed the 2018 version was obtained unfairly. She brought a will claim and challenged the will on the following grounds:

Betty lacked testamentary capacity;
Rosemary exerted undue influence;
Betty had previously promised her a share in the property (proprietary estoppel);
Ruth was financially dependent on Betty and eligible to claim under the 1975 Act.

Undue Influence and Misleading Conduct
The judge found that Rosemary, the sole beneficiary under the Disputed Will, had misled Betty at a time when she was particularly vulnerable. In particular:

Betty was wrongly led to believe that Ruth had agreed to the property being left to Rosemary alone.
Rosemary also told Betty that unless she left everything to Rosemary, the government would take her estate.

These false impressions were central to the judge’s finding of undue influence—Betty was not acting of her own free will. Instead, her decisions were shaped by manipulation and misinformation at the hands of her daughter.

Testamentary Capacity and the Golden Rule
The judge also concluded that Betty lacked testamentary capacity when she executed the Disputed Will.

A critical concern was the absence of any attempt to follow the Golden Rule, which requires an assessment by a medical professional when an elderly or infirm testator is making a will. The solicitor involved failed to obtain any medical input and made no attempt to ensure Betty’s understanding of the will’s content or consequences.

Further, Betty:

Did not know or understand the nature and extent of her estate;
Could not recall a promise she had made to Ruth only months earlier about her intentions regarding the property.

The Burden of Proof can be a key issue in claims of this nature
Ordinarily, the Will challenger has to prove his or her claim in cases of this nature – the fact that Will was properly executed and seemed to be rational on its face will usually lead the Court to presume capacity. The upshot of this is that many Solicitors and their clients (defending a Will) when faced with this challenge will simply sit on their hands, which is what to an extent happened in Hibbert v Rignall. In an earlier blog post we refer to the danger this can lead to when “unexpectedly” the Court reverses the burden of proof. For further information please see:

Who Has the Burden of Proving a Will Alleged to Be a Forgery – Will Claim Solicitors

In Hibbert HHJ Rawlings found in relation to the question as follows:
“On the issue of capacity the initial burden was on the propounder of the disputed Will, the defendant. The disputed Will was properly executed and rational on its face. The evidential burden therefore shifted to the objector, the Claimant. There was no expert evidence before the court. There was a real suspicion that the deceased did not have testamentary capacity at the time of the disputed Will and the defendant did not discharge the burden which fell on her as a consequence….The golden rule should have been followed by the solicitor in light of the deceased’s age and ailments….the other opinions as to capacity, save for the defendant’s own, suffered from the fact that they did not appear in a witness statement…Little weight could be attributed to those opinions. Although the Solicitor expressed the view at the end of her attendance note that the deceased had capacity, which would seem strong evidence of capacity, the court had significant concerns about the opinion. She ought to have followed the golden rule. She had not appeared concerned after the disputed Will was executed when the deceased told her she thought the government would take the property….the deceased also told the solicitor that she did not know what she had, and yet the solicitor recorded the deceased had full understanding of her estate…the defendant’s own opinion as to capacity as insufficient, even if honestly held..”

Inheritance Claim and Estoppel Rejected
Although Ruth was successful in having the Disputed Will set aside, she was unsuccessful in her inheritance claim under the 1975 Act, because it became an irrelevance – as the Disputed Will was invalid, Ruth inherited half of the estate and therefore had no financial needs. Ruth’s proprietary estoppel claim also failed. The Court found that Betty had merely made a statement of intention, rather than a promise which could be relied upon.

Key Lessons on How to Dispute a Will
This case is a powerful reminder of how complex a will dispute can be—and what courts look for in assessing a will claim. It offers key lessons for anyone thinking about how to contest a will:

Undue influence may be subtle, involving misinformation or emotional pressure—not just coercion.
Capacity must be properly documented, particularly when the testator is elderly, frail, or isolated.
The Golden Rule should be followed, with medical assessments arranged where appropriate.
Proprietary estoppel requires firm proof of a promise and detrimental reliance.
A successful will contest doesn’t necessarily lead to financial provision—each claim stands or falls on its own merits.

If you consider any of these facts and matters are of interest, are likely to apply to you, or you would like to ask us for more information about our no win no fee arrangement, or you simply want us to assess your claim, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a confidential no strings chat and/or visit us at www.willclaim.com.

We provide details about our no win no fee arrangements at https://www.willclaim.com/no-win-no-fee/.