The case of Richefond and others v Dillon and others highlights the importance of knowledge and approval when making a valid will.

What happened?

Following the discovery of their late father’s will, three children from Mr Grizzle’s previous marriage, successfully claimed a share of their late father’s estate.

If Mr Grizzle’s will had been effective, the following dispositions would have been made out of the Estate:

  • A gift of Mr Grizzle’s 50% share in the Property to his trustees to allow his partner of 40 years, Theodora, to continue to live there so long as she lived and then the remainder interest to be divided between the children of his family with Theodora (therefore excluding his children from his previous marriage); and
  • A gift of residue (which everything left in the Estate after all debts, bill, taxes and gifts have been made) to Theodora.

The children had been told that Mr Grizzle would like Theodora to continue to live in the family home but that ultimately it would pass to them on her passing. The will did not reflect this and would have disinherited his children from a previous marriage.

Disputing the Will

The children felt that their late father did not understand the will which he executed, and that this did not reflect what their father believed he was doing.  There were concerns around the execution of the will, including illiteracy and intelligence.

The High Court heard that Mr Grizzle was illiterate but had always been too proud to tell others of his problem. The children shared memories of their late father, and how he had always struggled to read, and they provided evidence of his struggles.  A person making a will must have ‘knowledge and approval’ of the contents of the same, therefore they must know and understand the consequences of the provisions in their will. There is a presumption of knowledge and approval when a will is validly executed (amongst other legal formalities). However, the children successfully rebutted this presumption of knowledge and approval because of the lack of understanding.

Master McQuail concluded that the will of Kenneth Grizzle was valid as to part but because Mr Grizzle did not know and approve the gift of residue, the gift failed.  As the gift of residue failed, there was a partial intestacy and therefore the residue was divided equally between his five children, including those Mr Grizzle did not have with Theodora.

While being illiterate and unable to read the will offers relatively unusual grounds for disputing a will, this case does reiterate the importance of using clear language and having evidence of a clear understanding of the consequences of a will, if families are to avoid disputes.

For assistance in relation to your will, please do not hesitate to get in touch with one of our experts in our Wills, Trusts and Probate team. We also have a specialist team who are able to assist with Contested Wills, Trusts and Probate.