A Will unravelled: Lessons from Karim v Steele

The background: a relationship of dependence and a disputed Will

The case revolved around the estate of Sheila Carter, who died in 2016 at the age of 87. Sheila, unmarried and without children, suffered from significant physical and psychological vulnerabilities, including chronic health issues, severe anxiety, and agoraphobia. She was highly dependent on others, particularly Shanaz Karim, who had been her live-in carer since 2006. Their relationship was one of deep mutual dependence, with Ms Karim providing extensive care and financial support to Sheila, including a substantial loan and contributions towards property improvements. In 2012, Sheila executed a Will, professionally prepared by a solicitor, leaving her jewellery to a close friend and her entire estate to Ms Karim. However, in 2015, a new Will emerged, prepared not by a solicitor but by a Will-writing business, Damsons Future Planning (‘Damsons’).

This 2015 Will named John Quinn, a friend of Sheila’s, as the sole beneficiary. The circumstances surrounding the 2015 Will, particularly the involvement of Mr Quinn and the lack of independent legal advice for Sheila, raised serious concerns.

Sheila met Mr Quinn during a hospital stay in 2013 and once she returned home he became a regular visitor. He showed an unusual and inappropriate level of intimacy, including helping her with her personal hygiene, which was unnecessary because she had professional carers in four times a day who would help her carry out this task. By 2015, he was the sole beneficiary under Sheila’s Will. Sheila’s friend Ms Payne confirmed that Mr Quinn visited Sheila daily and that Sheila told her that she was going to marry Mr Quinn and they were in love, but that he hadn’t told his wife. She advised she had put him in her Will. Ms Payne spoke to Mr Quinn to query if he felt the same way and he immediately said “no, I’m a married man”.

The Court’s decision

Master Clark examined the evidence, which included Sheila’s medical records, witness testimonies from those close to Sheila, and the limited documentation surrounding the 2015 Will’s creation.

Lack of Testamentary Capacity

The Court considered Sheila’s hospital notes in detail, and in which various notes she was referred to or treated as having capacity. Despite Sheila making a mistake with the name of her long standing friend when giving instructions to Damsons and a reference in the hospital notes to a dementia diagnosis on 15 October 2015, they found that she had vulnerabilities, but did not lack testamentary capacity when she made the 2015 Will.

Want of Knowledge and Approval

Master Clark concluded that Sheila did know and approve the contents of the 2015 Will. The fact that the Will was not complicated and was not difficult to understand led the Master to the decision that it was inconceivable that Sheila did not know what was in the Will when she signed it, and what its effect would be.

Undue Influence

The Court did not have direct evidence of undue influence, but identified compelling circumstantial facts:

1. Age and Frailty – Sheila was 85, physically frail, and suffering from multiple health conditions.
2. Psychological Vulnerability – She experienced severe anxiety when left alone, agoraphobia, and was highly susceptible to changing her mind. As early as 2012, her GP warned she was at risk of undue influence; by 2014, records described her as “very easily influenced” by strong personalities.
3. Emotional Dependence – Mr Quinn encouraged Sheila’s dependence through frequent visits, telling her he was in love with her, and kissing her. In the care home, Sheila refused to eat unless fed by Mr Quinn, showing total physical, emotional, and psychological dependence.
4. Isolation from Support – He deliberately distanced Sheila from Ms Karim, friends, and her support network, while feeding her untruths about Ms Karim to turn her against her.
5. Signs of Coercion – Hospital staff noted Sheila would change her mind after only 30 minutes with Mr Quinn and suspected coercion.
6. Unexplained Financial Withdrawals – About £28,000 was withdrawn from her bank account during a period when Mr Quinn was her only contact, with no explanation provided.
7. Instructions for the preparation of a New Will – Sheila herself did not initiate the 2015 Will; it was Mr Quinn’s wife who first contacted the Will-writers. Unlike her previous legal matters (handled by her solicitors, Romain Coleman), the 2015 Will was arranged through a Will-writing company. Instructions were given by telephone with Mr Quinn present, and no attempt was made to check whether they reflected Sheila’s true wishes.
8. Abandoning Previous Commitments – The new Will disregarded her prior gratitude to Ms Karim (reflected in a previous agreement in 2011 and 2012 Will), based only on Mr Quinn’s representations.

Master Clark found there was compelling evidence of undue influence. He highlighted how Mr Quinn had fostered an emotional dependence in Sheila, isolated her from Ms Karim and other friends, to whom she had previously been close to. The judgment pointed to Sheila’s total dependence on Mr Quinn and her pathological fear of being alone as key factors that made her susceptible to his influence. The Court noted that Mr Quinn’s failure to defend the claim or provide any explanation for his actions further supported this conclusion.

Fraudulent Calumny

Even if undue influence had not been established, the Court would have found that the 2015 Will was procured by fraudulent calumny. Mr Quinn had made false representations to Sheila, including claims that Ms Karim was ‘poisoning’ Sheila and manipulating her for financial gain, which he must have known were untrue.

The Outcome and Its Implications

Given these findings, Master Clark pronounced against the 2015 Will and revoked the grant of probate. Consequently, the 2012 Will, which favoured Ms Karim, was admitted to probate. This judgment serves as a powerful reminder of several critical points in contentious probate:

• Vulnerability and Independent Advice: The case underscores the heightened scrutiny applied to Wills made by vulnerable individuals, especially when independent legal advice is absent. Professional Will drafters play a crucial role in ensuring a testator’s true intentions are reflected and protected.
• The Dangers of Undue Influence: The judgment provides a clear illustration of how emotional dependence, and isolation can lead to undue influence. These claims are often difficult to prove, but the circumstantial evidence in this case was overwhelming.
• The Importance of Professional Advice: Damson’s failed to explore Sheila’s reasons for changing her Will and leaving her estate to Mr Quinn and took no steps to satisfy themselves that pressure was not being exerted by Mr Quinn on her.

Karim v Steele & Anor is a cautionary tale for individuals preparing their Wills, particularly individuals who are elderly, dependant or vulnerable, when the risks of undue influence are heightened. Obtaining expert legal advice from the outset is vital, to ensure that there is clear evidence that the testator’s wishes were freely made and properly understood. This greatly improves the prospects of those wishes being upheld and provides peace of mind that their estate is more likely to be distributed as intended.

How does this compare to the Court of Appeal decision – Rea v Rea [2024] EWCA Civ 169?

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Rea v Rea offers an interesting comparison. The brief facts are set out below:

• The testatrix, Anna Rea, was elderly and frail, dependent on her daughter Rita, who acted as her principal carer.
• The 2015 Will departed significantly from Anna’s previous testamentary pattern by leaving the most valuable asset — the family home — exclusively to Rita. Under her previous Wills she had left her estate between her four children.
• Rita arranged the Will and was present throughout the execution process, which heightened suspicions of undue influence.
• At first instance, the High Court accepted that undue influence had been proved: a combination of the testator’s vulnerability, dependence, and Rita’s dominant personality.
• However, the Court of Appeal overturned this finding. It emphasised that mere influence, even by a caregiver, is not enough; there must be evidence that the testator’s free Will was overborne. The Court held that Anna’s decision was equally consistent with a rational choice to benefit her devoted caretaker rather than coercion.

The circumstances in which the Wills were prepared were markedly different. In Karim, Sheila gave instructions over the phone with Mr Quinn present. Damsons did not arrange the execution, and there is no evidence as to how the Will was ultimately signed. No medical evidence was obtained to confirm that Sheila had capacity.

By contrast, in Rea, although Rita made the initial appointment, the Will-writer’s notes recorded that instructions were taken from Anna alone. Importantly, the solicitor also obtained a capacity assessment from Anna’s GP, who confirmed that she had the necessary understanding and was not acting under pressure. The solicitor then met Anna again, this time without Rita, to execute the Will, and both the solicitor and GP acted as witnesses.

There was also a significant difference in the relationships involved. In Karim, Mr Quinn was neither family nor a long-standing carer, but someone who came into Sheila’s life only shortly before the 2015 Will. In Rea, Anna explained to the Will-writer that she wanted her property to pass to Rita and not to her other children because they had not cared for her and she felt abandoned by them. The Court of Appeal stressed that to find undue influence, it must be the most probable explanation, and in Rea there was a clear, rational reason for Anna’s decision.

Another important distinction is that Karim was undefended. No positive case was advanced to counter the allegations, making it easier for the claimant to succeed. Coupled with strong circumstantial evidence, such as Sheila’s isolation, Mr Quinn’s false accusations about Ms Karim, and unexplained substantial withdrawal, the court was left with the outward appearance of coercion.

How we can help

At Blake Morgan, we have a dedicated contentious probate team who are ranked in the Legal 500 for this work. We can advise you on the strength of a potential claim or defence, help gather the right evidence at an early stage, and provide clear, practicable advice. In many cases, we are able to resolve disputes without the need for court proceedings, whether through careful negotiation or mediation.

If any of these issues affect you or you are concerned that a Will dispute may arise, please contact Victoria Lea-Holton for further advice.