PT-2022-000261 - [2025] EWHC 2060 (Ch)

Fecha: 20-Ago-2025

Undue influence

Undue influence

67.

This is not a case where the court has any direct evidence of undue influence. The facts that point towards undue influence in the making of the 2015 will are as follows:

(1)

Sheila was 85 years old when she made the will and physically frail, with multiple co-morbidities;

(2)

She was also psychologically very vulnerable, suffering from severe anxiety when left alone and agoraphobia; in particular, she was very susceptible to changing her decisions;

(3)

Even in 2012, Sheila’s GP considered that she was at risk of undue influence;

(4)

In June 2014, Mr Cranefield recorded her as being “very easily influenced by other people around her with strong personalities”;

(5)

Mr Quinn created an emotional dependence on himself by Sheila, by frequent visits, telling Sheila that he was in love with her, and kissing her;

(6)

Mr Quinn isolated Sheila from Ms Karim, and her friends and support network, with whom she had previously been close;

(7)

He also told Sheila untruths about Ms Karim with a view to isolating her from Ms Karim;

(8)

When in the care home, Sheila refused to eat unless Mr Quinn fed her;

(9)

Sheila was therefore physically, psychologically and emotionally entirely dependent on Mr Quinn;

(10)

The hospital noted how Sheila changed her mind after 30 minutes with Mr Quinn and suspected coercion;

(11)

Sheila withdrew substantial sums of money (totalling about £28,000) from her bank account, when Mr Quinn was the only person she was in contact with, and for which no explanation has been provided;

(12)

Sheila did not initiate the process of changing her will – it was Mrs Quinn who made the first contact with the will writers;

(13)

The 2015 will was not prepared by Romain Coleman whom she had previously used for all her affairs, including the 2011 agreement and the 2012 will;

(14)

The instructions for the 2015 will were given by telephone with Mr Quinn present, and no attempt was made to ascertain whether they represented Sheila’s independent wishes;

(15)

Sheila had acknowledged her gratitude and indebtedness to Ms Karim in the 2011 agreement and the 2012 will, and her reasons for resiling from them were ill-founded and based on what Mr Quinn told her;

(16)

Sheila had no reason to exclude her long standing friend Ms West from her will.

68.

In my judgment, this circumstantial evidence compels the conclusion that the making of the 2015 will was procured by some form of pressure exerted by Mr Quinn, founded on Sheila’s total dependence on him, and her pathological anxiety and fear of being alone. In this context, it is significant that Mr Quinn has not sought to defend the claim, nor to provide any explanation for any of his actions.

69.

In addition, or alternatively, in my judgment, Sheila’s testamentary intentions were vitiated by fraud. She believed that Mr Quinn had a romantic interest in her and was going to marry her, and Mr Quinn must have been the source of that belief. Mr Quinn’s conduct (kissing her in the hospital) confirm this.