When it comes to estate planning, the "golden rule" isn't just a polite suggestion—it’s a legal lifesaver. A recent High Court decision, Ginger v Mickleburgh (2026), serves as a major wake-up call for anyone involved in drafting wills, proving that even a professional's testimony can be set aside if the proper steps aren't followed.
The Case at a Glance
The dispute centred on the 2014 will of Mr. Gwilliam. Originally, he intended to die intestate (without a will), which would have seen his entire estate pass to his daughters. However, he later signed a will leaving the bulk of his assets to his sister, nephews, and an ex-girlfriend, leaving his daughters with only a 25% share.
The court found that Mr. Gwilliam was suffering from unfounded delusions. He wrongly believed his daughters were stealing from him and trying to have him sectioned for their own gain. Because these "insane delusions" directly influenced his choices, the court ruled he lacked the testamentary capacity required to make a valid will.
Why the Will-Writer’s Evidence Failed
Surprisingly, the court gave "little weight" to the evidence of the experienced solicitor who wrote the will. Here’s where things went wrong:
- Ignoring the "Golden Rule": Despite knowing Mr. Gwilliam had been sectioned and was on anti-psychotic medication, the solicitor didn't seek a formal medical assessment. Instead, she relied on casual comments from a nurse.
- Privacy Pitfalls: An unauthorised third party was allowed to stay in the room while the will was being prepared, which clouded the credibility of the instructions.
- Poor Paperwork: The solicitor failed to keep a detailed "attendance note" of the meeting. In the eyes of the court, if it isn't written down in detail, it’s hard to prove it happened correctly.
The Bottom Line
This ruling reminds us that practitioners must be extra vigilant when working with vulnerable or older clients. Simply "taking instructions" isn't enough if there are red flags regarding mental health.
See a copy of the Judgment here:
