CONTESTING A WILL WITH WILLCLAIM SOLICITORS NO WIN NO FEESPECIALISTS – A TALE OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND COERCIVECONTROL

Will claim Solicitors, specialist no win no fee will dispute and will contest Solicitors, discuss
the recent decision in Oliver v Oliver

Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch)

Oliver v Oliver is yet another compelling Will contest or Will dispute decision from the
prolific centre of excellence (in this area) that is now established in Bristol, but in particular
from the clear and technically brilliant mind of HHJ Paul Matthews.

Initially the Judgment (which is 38 pages long) appears slightly off-putting given its length
and factual detail – but as ever one is drawn into the (sometimes fortunate but ultimately
unfortunate) family circumstances of the Oliver family and their inter related business
interests. Frankly it reads like a Thomas Hardy novel; but one cannot help but conclude that
some of the “contamination” of the testator’s mind in this instance leading to HHJ Paul
Matthews’ multiple findings of lack of capacity and undue influence were at least in part
and/or indirectly due to his eldest child’s own “contamination” by spurious social media
conspiracy theories. I fear this will not the last case to be affected by this unregulated and
potentially dangerous modern phenomenon.

Anyway, here is the link to the recent decision:
Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) (09 September 2024) (bailii.org)

A case of conspiracy theories and sequestration

I am only going to provide a flavour here; but the events recorded were extreme to say the
least.

The overview is that the deceased (testator) was the father of the protagonists to this dispute. He had been substantially disinherited by his own parents who believed that the family assets
should be passed to the eldest child only and had been determined throughout his life (prior to the events which lead up to the formation of the disputed Will in 2015) that his entire estate should be divided equally between his children; no matter what. The previous Will-making pattern reflected this.

All of the children had worked in the family business (which developed into a fairly
substantial mushroom producer – but which was undone by cheaper foreign imports). The
eldest child (Rodney) appears to have lead this but left for a lengthy period after having an
affair with one of the employees. Notwithstanding, this never affected how he and the others were treated (equally). It was only when his subsequent marriage failed and he returned to the fold (and after their mother’s death) that things began to change. By this time, Rodney had moved in with this father (the testator) who became substantially reliant upon him.

The following quote from the Judgment at paragraph 58 will resonate with many practitioners
in this area:

“Thereafter, William [testator] became increasingly isolated from the rest of the
children. Rodney changed William’s telephone number, and introduced a call screening
service that in effect prevented the other children from speaking to their father. In
addition, Rodney fortified Drakelands with extra security measures, such as locks, bolts,
and welded gates, so that his siblings were in effect unable to visit…He also installed
doorbells that did not work, not doubt to put callers off”

To an extent (and I realise I am in danger of masquerading as an amateur sleuth) this though
may have been a manifestation of the contamination of Rodney’s mind with various
conspiracy theories; although it was also quite convenient ultimately in procuring the Will
too. These conspiracy theories included (for example – at paragraph 45 of the Judgment):
– land fires in California were deliberately set to eliminate specific people
– 9/11 had been arranged by the US government
– governments used aeroplanes to spread chemicals to control the civilian population
– doctors were a scam and told lies to make money for themselves and the pharmaceutical
companies

This lead inexorably to William (testator) accepting treatments “prescribed” by Rodney to
include (paragraph 46):
– the “Hay” diet (developed by a New York physician, William Hay, in the 1920’s)
– weaning William off of his prescribed medication
– persuading William to try drinking his own urine and to purge himself with hydrogen
peroxide (!!)

As reported at paragraph 48:

“William became almost completely dependent on Rodney, who controlled what he ate
and drank, what medicines he took, and who had access to him. His dependency was
such that, when Rodney was not present, he asked continually to know where Rodney
was, and appeared lost if he did not know”

The will change to the disputed 2015 Will was carefully carried out
The will change to the disputed 2015 Will was carefully carried out (by a company of
licenced conveyancers and will writers) although (at paragraph 60) there was hearsay
evidence that 3 or 4 solicitors firms had previously declined to take on the instructions.

So for example, a medical report was commissioned from the testator’s GP, the primary
instruction meeting took place absent Rodney and was recorded and finally the GP was
asked to be a witness to the Will. Moreover, it all appears to have been carefully documented.

Against this background it is a little surprising that the Will was not upheld [refer to my
previous commentary on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hughes v Pritchard which seemed
to be a restatement of principles so that a Will prepared by an experienced Solicitor,
supported by the testator’s GP, was unlikely to be overturned Hughes v Pritchard a
Restatement of Principles (Part 1 of 2) – Will Claim Solicitors ].

Except of course in Oliver the matter was not only undefended, but the Court had before it
quite extreme (and bizarre) behaviour by Rodney both before and after the testator’s death
which can only have operated to reinforce HHJ Paul Matthews’ decision that this was a clear
case of undue influence and lack of capacity. Rodney’s failure (in fact outright refusal) to
engage in the Court process is carefully documented in the Judgment but at paragraph 11 it is recorded:

On 7 July 2020 the claimant solicitors tried again, and sent a formal letter of claim to
the same address, running to 15 single-spaced A4 pages. This letter was returned
through the post to the claimants’ solicitors, with an adhesive label stuck over the
window panel marked as follows in typescript:

“RETURN TO SENDER.
I DO NOT RECOGNISE YOU.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND (STAND UNDER) YOUR INTENT.
I DO NOT HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY WITH YOU.
NO ASSURED VALUE.
NO LIABILITY.”

Underneath the adhesive label were the words in handwritten capitals: “ALL
MAILINGS RECORDED”. There was no other message.

Paragraph 89 also records a really very concerning event whilst William (testator) was in
hospital shortly before his death:

On 22 April, Rodney was arrested by police after admitting that he had administered
hydrogen peroxide to William, and injected urine into William’s catheter. As a result
he was barred from the hospital. Because Gillian and Jane had been seen by the
nurses talking to Rodney (and were his sisters), they were treated with some
suspicion, and were allowed to visit William only under the supervision of a security
guard. They resented this, but in the circumstances I do not think the hospital was
wrong to put William’s interests first when the full facts were not yet known. Rodney
tried to persuade his sisters to take hydrogen peroxide in to the hospital, with which
to dose their father. To keep him quiet, they took it to the hospital, but left it in the
car. Once Rodney was no longer allowed to visit, Andrew and Kevin visited more
easily. The evidence shows that William’s mood improved in the absence of Rodney.
Unfortunately, his health deteriorated, and he died on 25 May 2018.

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/.