Gill v Woodall & Ors [2009] EWHC B34 (Ch) (05 October 2009)

Gill v Woodall & Ors [2009] EWHC B34 (Ch) (05 October 2009)

The court found that Mrs Gill did not know and approve the contents of her will and that her volition was overborne by Mr Gill's influence, rendering the will invalid. Alternatively, the court found that the Claimant had established a proprietary estoppel claim, having acted to her detriment in reliance on assurances that she would inherit the farm.

Citation
[2009] EWHC B34 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Christine Angela Gill; First Defendant: Stephen Woodall; Second Defendant: Stanley Anthony Lonsdale; Third Defendant: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Probate/inheritance Dispute / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Undue Influence, Proprietary Estoppel, Equitable Relief
Wills and Probate Equity and Trusts Testamentary Capacity Knowledge and Approval Undue Influence Proprietary Estoppel Equitable Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Christine Angela Gill

Claimant

Stephen Woodall

First Defendant

Stanley Anthony Lonsdale

Second Defendant

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/inheritance Dispute / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Gill knew and approved the contents of her will
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Gill's will was procured by undue influence or coercion
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant has a valid claim in proprietary estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mrs Gill did not know and approve the contents of her will and that her volition was overborne by Mr Gill's influence, rendering the will invalid. Alternatively, the court found that the Claimant had established a proprietary estoppel claim, having acted to her detriment in reliance on assurances that she would inherit the farm.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Mrs Gill's will declared invalid
  • Grant of probate set aside