Helen Ginger & Ors v Robert Mickleburgh & Ors

Michael Gwilliam, the deceased, died on 17 February 2022. He was 79 years old and had been suffering from dementia. This claim concerns a dispute over the validity of a will executed by the deceased on 3 December 2014. Its validity is challenged on the basis first that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity to make a will at the time, specifically because he was said to be suffering from delusions or disturbance of the mind which caused him to act adversely to his four daughters, the claimants in this matter. Alternatively it is contended that the will should be set aside as having been procured by the fraudulent calumny of two of the defendants, the testator’s sister Sheila Gwilliam and his companion, Joan Brooks. If either plea is made out it is agreed that the deceased would have died intestate, and the four claimants who are the deceased’s daughters would be entitled to his estate as his next of kin. The defendants seek to uphold the validity of the will, which appoints two of them (Sheila Gwilliam and her son, Robert Mickleburgh) as executors and trustees, and confers on all of them significant financial benefits, as well as providing in a relatively minor way for the claimants.

The claimants have been represented by Mr. Joss Knight of counsel. The defendants have been represented by Mr. John Ward-Prowse of counsel. I am grateful to both of them for their oral and written advocacy, and the sensibility with which they have put their clients’ case, whilst putting it clearly and properly.

In determining the issues I will need to make findings of fact, as to what happened and why. In Leonard v Leonard [2024] at para 54, Joanna Smith J referred to theuseful guidance given by Norris J in Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 (Ch) at [9], as follows:

“The task of the probate court is to ascertain what (if anything) was the last true will of a free and capable testator. The focus of the enquiry is upon the process by which the document which it is sought to admit to proof was produced. Other matters are relevant only insofar as they illuminate some material part of that process. Probate actions become unnecessarily discursive and expensive and absorb disproportionate resources if this focus is lost”.

That is all the more helpful advice where the parties have fallen out over a period of years and consider the other to be generally dishonest or bad. It is not the role of the court to determine all of the issues between the parties, however wounding or unjustified those allegations or the issues underpinning them may be. The difficulty in adopting such a purist and exclusive view is that it is based on the irrelevance of such evidence in determining the issue of testamentary capacity. In Wharton v Bancroft (supra) the challenge was based on an allegation of undue influence upon the testator, and the material evidence related to that allegation. In the present case alleged testamentary delusions relate to the conduct of the claimants and their mother, whilst the fraudulent calumny relates both to allegations concerning their behaviour and character and as to their motivation and purpose. In such circumstances the court may be obliged to resolve those allegations insofar as they are probative of motive. In those circumstances it cannot be avoided, however much that might be preferred.

In determining the relevant factual disputes between the parties I have had regard to the oral evidence that I have heard and assessed. I have also had regard to the contemporaneous documentation that has been put before the court. In the case of Michael’s diary I have had to have regard to the possibility that he might be an unreliable narrator. In the case of third party documents, typically medical notes or police notes of discussions with Michael and others, the makers of those notes have not in most cases been called to give evidence (there is an exception in the case of Paul Jolley, who is the mental health nurse who assisted Michael in the course of the later years of his life after 2013). I have also had regard to the inherent probabilities of the various allegations and disputed incidents.

This is a family dispute, and in describing the deceased’s family relationships I will refer to the parties and the deceased’s relatives by the first names for convenience. I mean no disrespect in so doing. It is also a personal and bitter dispute, and the roots of that bitterness appear to go back in time. To understand that it is necessary to set out some of the family history.

The deceased, who I will refer to hereafter as ‘Michael’ or ’the deceased’, was born to Arthur and Jean in February 1942. He had a younger sister, Sheila, the second defendant. He married his wife Christine in 1972, and they had four children together between 1973 and 1979: in order of birth Caroline, Helen, Emily and Georgina, the claimants. For her part, Sheila had moved to London in the late 1960s or early 1970s, before Michael married Christine. Sheila then moved to Bath in about 1980.

The deceased’s occupation in the early years of the marriage was as an antiques dealer. He would source goods and send them to a commercial contact in Brisbane, Australia. That relationship and source of income came to an end as a result of a recession in about 1979 or 1980, and the deceased’s income thereafter turned on buying and selling antiques, and also doing work on and buying or selling vehicles and vehicle parts in a small way. It appears to have been slightly precarious.

Michael and Christine had originally lived with Arthur and Jean at White House Farm in English Bicknor in the Forest of Dean (‘the Forest’). The Forest is a rural, ancient and somewhat secluded part of Gloucestershire, in the Wye Valley, with its own distinctive character. White House Farm was sold in 1982 and Arthur and Jean bought a bungalow to live in. Michael and Christine jointly purchased New House Farm, Awre, in the Forest of Dean, which was a large but old 5 bedroomed farmhouse with a number of outbuildings, a barn and three fields. It was bought with the assistance of funding from Arthur and Jean, secured by a legal charge dated 14 January 1983, and that funding was to cause a dispute some years later.

Arthur died in 1988. In 1993 Jean who suffered progressively with dementia moved out of the bungalow and moved to live with Sheila in Bath. The bungalow was sold. Jean died in 2000 and it appears that letters of administration to her estate were granted to Sheila as her personal representative. There is and has been a disagreement between the daughters and Sheila as to whether Sheila properly administered Arthur and Jean’s estates, or whether she did so for her own benefit and to the prejudice of Michael. I have seen no evidence that shows that Sheila has misbehaved in any such way, but this shows that there has been throughout an animus from at least Christine and some of the children, and that they have been willing to think the worst of Sheila and her motives insofar as she has become involved in Michael’s life.

In 1994 Michael and Christine divorced. Although they appear to have been on reasonable terms personally there were difficulties in resolving the financial provision proceedings. Their main matrimonial asset was New House Farm. Sheila, acting as personal representative of Jean’s and/or Arthur’s estate intervened in the divorce proceedings to claim an interest in New House Farm by way of the mortgage. This, whether its existence or its terms is unclear, was disputed, but was many years later resolved by a consent order dated 11 August 2005 which declared that the mortgage secured lending in the sum of £70,650 against New House Farm, but that no interest was payable. That still left the question of what to do with Christine’s interest in the Farm.

A court order in 1994 had provided for New House Farm to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between Michael and Christine. In 2007 Michael bought out Christine by raising an interest-only mortgage over the Farm. Exactly whether or how that transaction may have been affected by the loan from Arthur and/or Jean; and whether it was in fact asserted at the time has not been gone into in these proceedings. So it was common ground that Michael paid Christine out for her share in the property.

The court order also made provision for the chattels at the Farm. They had many by reason of Michael’s business as an antiques dealer. They had Messrs Bruton Knowles draw up an inventory with a valuation. They agreed that they would divide the chattels between themselves by value. But they never did. They remained in the Farm.

Christine formed a new relationship and lived nearby. She remarried in 2017. Although the children initially lived with Christine, Georgina and Emily had a little while later gone back to live with Michael, until after a few years they went their own way. Although Caroline moved out of the area and still lives and works in London, the other daughters appear to have lived and still live in relative proximity to Michael and New House Farm. Until the events of 2013 the relationship between Michael and his daughters and indeed his ex-wife appears to have been harmonious.

Turning back to Michael, in about 1995 he met a divorcee, Joan Brooks, the third defendant, through an acquaintance. Joan was an employee at Rank Xerox nearby. Joan moved into New House Farm, and she had her own bedroom there. In 2011 Joan rented her own property in Lydney, but she appears to have retained the bedroom at the Farm. She would continue to cook for Michael.

By 2013 Michael was suffering from money problems. His income was not sufficient to maintain New House Farm properly and pay the interest on the mortgage. He decided to sell it, and it was placed with local agents, Toombs and Toombs.

It is at this stage that I need to introduce the Awre (pronounced ‘Orr’) family. The Awre family are significant landowners and farmers in the area. As Charles Awre told me in his evidence the village name relates to his family name. The Awre farm is a neighbouring farm to New House Farm. Charles Awre had known Michael for some years, and they shared an interest in motor vehicles, which they would work on together. There is a dispute as to the harmony or otherwise of their relationship and I will deal with that in due course.

Turning back to the intended sale of New House Farm, a Mr. Trenchard indicated that he was interested in buying the property, and a meeting at the property was arranged between Michael, Mr. Trenchard, Mr. Kevin Toombs the agent and Christine. Mr. Trenchard had made what appears to have been a low offer for the Farm. He was asked what the maximum he would offer for the property was; and he said £540,000. Michael was asked whether he would accept that sum, and he replied that he would. Christine was happy with this and told him that it was a good deal. The meeting ended. The next day Michael decided that he would not accept the offer. What is significant are the reasons given for the refusal. First, he now considered that the offer was too low. Joan told him that the offer was ‘chicken feed’. Christine heard her tell him this over the phone. Secondly, Michael considered that Mr. Trenchard was being put up to the purchase by the Awre family. He was the brother of Mandy Awre, who was the second wife of Derek Awre, who is the patriarch of the family. I would also add that he is said to be the cousin of Joan Brooks.

At about this time in late 2013, Michael became concerned that someone or some group of people was trying to break into his property and damage it. He told people that he could hear noises outside of his property or see bright lights shone through his boundary hedges and started to hear tapping noises on his outside windows and door. He was fearful that people or vehicles would come through and on to his property, and damage it or his vehicles. He complained to his children about this behaviour and maintained that it was behaviour by or instigated by Charles Awre and the Awre family in general; and that the purpose of this behaviour was to induce him to sell the Farm to Mr. Trenchard or to someone connected to the Awre family.

In November 2013 Michael had been referred by his GP surgery to the Gloucestershire Royal Infirmary for investigation of a difficulty in swallowing. He was seen on 1 February 2014, and the letter to his GP stated:

“We suggest further input and advice from the gastroenterology team. [Michael] may also benefit from some psychological support with his anxiety”

On 7 February 2014 Helen contacted Dr Martin Gibbs, Michael’s GP. He then called the local Crisis Regional Health Team (CRHT) which call was noted in the following terms:

“He wanted to alert the CRHT of Michael’s current difficulties in case we are contacted [out of hours]. 71 year old farmer, currently living alone. Divorced a few years ago. Recently partner has also left him. Financial difficulties have led him to placing the farmhouse for sale, land has already been sold. Daughter has been concerned about father, has not slept well for several nights, believes the local neighbours are conspiring to arrange for his property to be sold at less than its value/ Daughter believes Michael is becoming paranoid/deluded and arranged for him to attend GP surgery this afternoon. GP hadn’t seen him at point of phone call. GP thinks it is anxiety and will prescribe zopiclone and diazepam in the short term and review him next week but will contact CRHT later today if he thinks it is more serious and ask us to assess.”

Helen took Michael to see Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Gibbs arranged for a visit at home by the CRHT. That took place on 11 February with Helen present. Michael recounted his perceptions and beliefs. The medical note taken at the time said that Michael was initially very angry at their presence and initially refused them entry into the house. He presented as agitated with persecutory and paranoid thoughts. There was no obvious cognitive deficit and his memory appeared intact. No formal assessment was carried out. During the interview Michael obtained an air rifle and pointed it at his visitors, although not in a threatening manner. Michael said it was not loaded.

Christine stayed with Michael at his home that night. That afternoon he was visited by the CRHT (Jane Hutchison, social worker) and Dr Vrabtchev, consultant psychiatrist. Armed police were in attendance. He discussed his circumstances with Dr. Vrabtchev. He said that he was enraged by the harassment he was suffering and had had thoughts of hurting the man responsible. He had previously produced an air rifle to show that he could defend himself if necessary. Michael was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and moved to Wootton Lawn Acute Mental Health Hospital.

Whilst Michael was still detained, Christine went to New House Farm and took some of the chattels that were kept there. Christine had been given a key to the Farm by Michael and visited to feed Michael’s dogs. As I have said Michael had been a dealer in antiques, and the Farm contained some of his stock. According to Christine, items were taken for safe keeping because the property was unoccupied. Christine maintains that the chattels were jointly owned, not having been finally sorted out as to ownership after their divorce, and that she was entitled to remove the property anyway.

According to the defendants the property taken was substantially greater in quantity and value than that admitted by Christine and her daughters, including Michael’s gold watch and Michael’s personal papers. The defendants described this as theft.

On 17 February 2014 Michael was transferred to Charlton Lane Hospital. Michael was assessed by Dr. Ogden Consultant Psychiatrist, who considered that Michael’s mental disorder was of a nature and degree that warranted ongoing detention in hospital for further assessment and/or treatment. On 27 February 2014 Michael was discharged from hospital. His discharge summary, prepared by Dr Ardagh-Walter, consultant psychiatrist, stated as follows:

“Purpose of Admission

Detained under section 2 of MHA because of persecutory delusions and hallucinations relating to a known person, who he believes was attempting to force him to leave his property by damaging his property. At one stage he spent 2 consecutive nights outside his house, warding off this person with his torch.

In hospital, the delusional thoughts persisted but he was calm and cooperative. He was in principle prepared to take medication although on two occasions he stopped it, partly because of possible side effects – but also, one or two family members were strongly against him taking any medication and this may have influenced his decisions.

Cognitive testing showed some significant but fairly mild areas of impairment.

CT brain showed some diffuse ischaemia.

Diagnosis

Persistent delusional disorder

Mild Cognitive Impairment due to diffuse cerebrovascular impairment

…….

Progress in Hospital

He does not accept that he has been mentally ill in any way but he remained calm and well organised although he persisted in his beliefs about the events leading to admission. He agreed in principle to take medication but stopped it for various reasons. He appealed against his section and it became clear that his condition was not of a degree that the section would be continued, and so discharge was planned.”

Michael returned to New House Farm. Thereafter, until he moved to Bath, he was subject to outpatient assistance from the local NHS and mental health teams.

There is no doubt that from this point on, if not sooner, the relationship between Sheila and Joan on the one hand, and Christine and the daughters on the other (although possibly less so Caroline, who was living in London and hence less engaged) was appalling. Both groups asserted that they were acting in the best interests of Michael. Christine and the claimants asserted that Michael had been suffering from delusions and was a risk to himself and to others. He required mental health intervention, treatment and possibly restraint under the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘sectioning’) for his own good. They assert that Joan’s and Sheila’s denial of Michael’s illness and need for treatment was wrong, malicious and carried out for the purpose of causing Michael to prefer them and Sheila’s relatives in his testamentary dispositions.

Joan and Sheila deny that Michael was at any time delusional, maintaining that Michael had a factual basis for the concerns that he had. They assert that Christine and her daughters, and in particular Helen, have taken advantage of an opportunity to falsely present Michael to mental health professionals for the purpose of having him sectioned, so that they might obtain his property and control his life for their own avaricious financial advantage. Neither warring side appears to contemplate that the other has acted, or even sought to act, in Michael’s best interests.

On 6 March 2014 Michael and Sheila attended at Christine’s home to collect the goods that Christine had removed. There is a dispute as to who was present beyond these. The meeting did not go well. Sheila’s evidence was that Christine’s party was aggressive and potentially violent. Christine’s evidence was that Sheila was angry and accusatory. Sheila drove off with Michael but without any of the goods.

Christine appears to have visited Michael at home shortly afterwards. She says she returned the goods that she had taken; Joan says that all that was returned was a jardiniere.

As I have said, Michael continued to receive the benefit of medical treatment. On 26 September 2014 Sheila wrote to Dr. Tan the treating psychiatrist in the following terms:

“I am very disappointed that you see fit to ask Michael … to take anti-psychotic pills. Why? He does not and should not need to take them.

I am told the police contacted you claiming Michael was delusional or to that effect. Michael is still being harassed by the banging on the window. Because of his tinnitus which doesn’t seem to have been properly addressed by the medical profession, he finds it difficult to believe the machinery noises in his ears are not real. This coupled with harassment causes him great distress particularly at night. The needs a proper professional to convince him of his hearing problem. This is the crux of the problem and must be assessed.”

The letter continued by blaming Dr Gibbs for Michael’s wrongful sectioning stating that Michael is vulnerable, easily influenced and can be distraught when he thinks he is under siege. Sheila had to ‘watch his back’.

On 4 November 2014 Julie Costley, a paralegal in the probate department of Gwyn James solicitor attended Michael at New House Farm. She had been asked to attend for the purpose of taking instructions from Michael for drawing up a will. Michael had never previously had a will. Simultaneously Michael was also attended by Mr. Glyn Maddocks, a solicitor from Gabb & Co. Mr. Maddocks was attending for the purpose of advising Michael as to the lawfulness of his detention and possible remedies. Sheila and Joan were present in the house at the time the instructions were given. Joan gave evidence that she was present when the instructions were given. It was also Joan’s evidence that Michael initially wanted to give nothing to his daughters; it was Mrs. Costley’s suggestion that he do so, and he followed that. Also present was Paul Jolley, a mental health nurse. There is a substantial dispute as to the role (if any) he had in the giving of instructions.

Ms. Costley filled in a will questionnaire as she took instructions. The material parts of the questionnaire are as follows. Michael wished to appoint Sheila and Robert as his executors, with a partner in Gwyn James to be appointed in default. He gave a legacy of £31,000 to Joan, with a gift over in default to her son. His residuary estate was to be divided 25% to Joan, 25% to Sheila, 25% to be provided to Sheila’s three sons (Robert was to receive 15%, Simon 5% and William 5%) and 25% was to be provided to his daughters. It appears from the questionnaire that the gift to the daughters (alone) was to be conditional on ‘no claim being made’. The gifts were subject to a gift over in default to CRUK (cancer research). Asked whether and why he had excluded any person from his will, it records: “Have gifted this way to my daughters due to their treatment in recent years”.

Ms. Costley also completed a Will Capacity Checklist She wrote the following:

“On anti-psychotic drugs – small dose

Paul Jolley community health nurse of Collier Court

Visits weekly – believes that he has mental capacity to draw up his will.”

The checklist also provided:

“People making a will should understand and where necessary make choices in regard to….14. The reasonably foreseeable consequences of making or not making a will at this time. [Ms. Costley had written in:] ‘Understands it will pass to his daughters but this is not what he wants.’”

Michael’s diary contains entries for 4 November. Although it is not the most legible, it appears to me that he wrote:

“Solicitor came here

Sheila came here keep on to telling me what to do medication not for me

(Women about will).”

On 11 November 2014 Michael was assessed by Dr Tan, a consultant in Old Age Psychiatry with the Forest Community Health Team. He gave his report to Dr Gibbs by letter dated 17 November 2014. It provided:

“We once again went through his fixed delusions regarding his neighbours persecuting and hounding him. He continues to experience auditory hallucinations of cars revving in Awre as well as in Lydney. More worryingly, Mr Gwilliam spoke of wanting to harm the Awre family. Thankfully these are just initial thoughts with nothing worked out and no fixed plan. He told me he is aware this is against the law but argued that the Awre family has been breaking the law and persecuting him, and the police are doing nothing about it. I firmly advised him against this course of action and he said he would let Joan or ourselves know before he gets this going. Joan believes it is just talk at this moment in time.

During the consultation I tested Mr Gwilliam's views which remain delusional in intensity, fixed and unshakable. When challenged, Mr Gwilliam would raise his voice before changing the topic. He does not believe he is unwell and does not think there could be any other explanation for the things he experiences or believes.”

Michael told Dr. Tan that he was not taking his prescribed medication, but that he would consider doing so in the future.

The execution of the will took place at Gwyn James’ office in Coleford on 3 December 2014, Sheila and Joan having driven Michael there. The will was witnessed by Ms. Costley and Charlotte Cullis, an administrative assistant with Gwyn James. It appointed Robert and Sheila as his executors and trustees. It provided the following legacies:

On 3 February 2015 Joan wrote out, and Michael signed, a letter of wishes related to Michael’s testamentary dispositions in the following terms (I have retained the original spelling and grammar):

“To whom it may concern

I have left in my will 25% to my four daughters’ Caroline, Helen, Emily, Georgina.

The reason is – They went behind my back telling Lies about me to Dr. Gibbs it appears with the help of their mother Christine Gwilliam, they wanted me sectiond I now believe it was to sell my home, take power of atterny over me – 1. My ex wife tricked me into going to a Solicitor in Lydney for a different reason to what she told me – it was to force my hand to make a will, I refused & walked out. Then Aug?2013 they got nasty shouting at me because I refused to sell my home at a knock-down price to my wife’s friend’s.

After this i had harressment, my daughter Helen with her boyfriend took me to my dr. saying I was delusional? & dr Gibbs said I was stressed gave me diazipam I never seen them Helen had them – re-fur to dr Gibbs letters!

They obviously did not agree or like this.

They knew one way to make sure I was Sectiond (sic) was to phone my dr – police – Dads armd + danger to neighbour Dr Gibbs came to mine with police, mentle heath team & Sectiond me, my bag had already been packed – I had been Set up by my own daughters – Ex Wife – Thankfully after two wks (sic) I was released with – NO MENTLE CRITERIA, NO SINGES OF DEMENTUR.

Sadly with that two wks, They rifeld my home Stealing Prints, China, ect Antiques.

This is why my will will stand.

Yes my friend wrote this on my behalf as I dont like writing letters – But this is my wish, this is my signature”

In 2016 Michael sold New House Farm for £481,000 and purchased a bungalow.

In 2018 Helen visited her father. She says that he was deteriorating mentally and incapable of caring for himself. She took him to visit a residential home she thought he might move into. According to Sheila Michael was terrified that he was going to be sectioned again; he telephoned her out of fear, and Sheila drove to the Forest, collected Michael and took him to live with her and her family in Bath.

In 2018 Michael executed a Lasting Power of Attorney in favour of Sheila and Robert. In May 2018 Helen sought her appointment as Michael’s deputy by application to the Court of Protection, asserting that Michael did not have capacity. That application was supported by a statement from Mr. Jolley, who noted both that Michael had a diagnosis of vascular dementia and that a cognitive assessment completed on 8 August 2017 indicated marked cognitive impairment. He also stated that Michael had a diagnosis of vascular impairment with a picture of deteriorative cognitive impairment since 2014.

Sheila opposed that application. I have been supplied with the position statement drafted by Sheila’s counsel at the hearing. It challenges the technical and procedural propriety of Helen’s application. As to the merits, it refers to evidence in support of the validity of the power of attorney granted to Sheila and Robert, as follows:

In any event, at a hearing before District Judge O’Neill (as she then was) on 22 November 2018 Helen agreed to withdraw her application. I have read a narrative of that hearing contained within Ms Noyce’s letter of 12 February 2019.

Michael lived with Sheila until November 2019 where he moved into a care home. He died on 17 February 2022 aged 79. He was buried in Bath. Sheila required Christine and the daughters to stay away from the funeral, and they did. They held a memorial service for Michael locally.

I shall next set out my summary of the oral evidence I heard from the witnesses.

Helen Ginger is a Registered Mental Health Nurse, having started training in 2011 and qualified in 2014. Helen maintained that she had a close relationship with her father throughout her life. Michael was socially anxious and did not go to social events. She described him as lovable, calm and non-confrontational and very popular. They would speak every day.

Helen married in 2005 and in 2006 she and her husband emigrated to Australia. She kept in contact with her father. When Helen became pregnant she and her husband returned to Lydney, where they live some 15 minutes away from new House Farm. They spoke frequently. In 2012 she would take her young children to visit the Farm, where they tended vegetables at the allotment area.

Her evidence was that Sheila only rarely saw Michael, and that was only at Christmas or when she required Michael’s assistance as a mechanic. Although the relationship between her parents was difficult during the divorce, afterwards they appeared to be good friends. Helen thought the mortgage to buy Christine out of the Farm in 2007 was for £250,000. She could not understand how Michael had been able to raise the money, even under an interest-only mortgage. She described Michael as not being savvy with money. In 2013 she thought Michael’s income had gone down, and Christine had contributed to his mortgage repayments and paid for heating oil.

Helen described Michael’s relationship with Joan as tumultuous. In 2007 Joan moved out. Helen described her father as distraught, but also worried that Joan would cause him problems. The children encouraged Joan to return and she did. She also gave evidence about a dispute between Michael and Joan over Michael not fitting a new kitchen, which led to Joan moving out again. Although Helen was critical of Joan’s attitude to Michael, she said that whilst she did not have much of a relationship with Joan, there was no animosity between them.

In early 2014 Helen said that Emily had told her Michael was complaining about Charles Awre tapping on her windows. Helen could not understand why Charles Awre would do this. She drove over late one night to see Michael pointing through a hedge saying ‘there they are, can you see them’ but there was nothing there but streetlights. Michael was convinced they were going to barge through the hedge and destroy the vehicles in his barn. There was nothing there. A similar event happened a few days later. Michael’s conversation appeared obsessed. Christine arranged for CCTV to be installed in January 2014. It showed nothing, but Michael was convinced that whoever was there was dodging the camera. Helen was concerned about her father’s mental state, considering that his actions were out of character, paranoid and delusional, and so contacted his GP, Dr. Gibbs. He arranged for the Mental Health Crisis Team to carry out a Mental Health Act assessment on Michael on 11 February. Helen spoke to Sheila to inform her of what was happening. Sheila was furious. She shouted ‘this must be stopped’ and ‘this cannot be allowed to happen’.

Helen was present at the Farm when Michael was sectioned on 12 February. She denied wanting her father sectioned or arranging it to obtain his money. At the hospital, her father believed he had been arrested because of the presence of the police.

After Michael’s discharge from hospital his beliefs remained as before. He would stay up all night and complain that he could hear noises and vehicles revving. She said that Joan and Sheila had sought to persuade Michael not to take his prescribed medication.

On 22 March 2014 Helen, Georgie and Emily and various grandchildren visited the Farm to take Michael some cake and celebrate his birthday. During the visit Sheila phoned and was heard to ask Michael to tell his visitors to leave; that he was an idiot and that they wanted to lock him up in a mental asylum. Michael was confused and agitated but calmed and distracted by the visitors singing him ‘Happy Birthday’.

Thereafter Helen was concerned about making her father angry; she said he never really recovered from the fixation that Helen had conspired to steal from him, and so she limited her contact with him in 2014. After her father moved into the bungalow in 2016 Helen visited him a couple of times. He told her that he had Alzheimer’s disease. Helen said she would arrange some respite care at a local nursing home, but the day before he was due to go Sheila took him to live with her in Bath.

In April 2014 a complaint was made against Helen to her college that Helen had stolen Diazepam. The complaint appeared to be from ‘Joan’. Helen caused her solicitors to send Joan a cease and desist letter. There was no response.

Her father had always said he did not need to make a will. Helen maintained that Joan, Sheila and Sheila’s family had always played a small part in Michael’s life. In Helen’s view it was implausible that were he in his right mind he would have named them as beneficiaries of his estate.

Cross-examined, she denied visiting Joan at her home in Spring 2013 and accusing her of ‘being mental’, or of receiving Joan’s address from Michael. She said she had never been to Joan’s home. She agreed that she had suggested that Joan see her GP for depression when she was made redundant, but that was in the 1990s.

Michael had problems expressing his emotions. He had social anxiety. He hated being away from the Farm. At the time of the abortive sale Michael was having financial problems and suffering from hypertension. Helen did not know Mr. Trenchard; he was not her mother’s boyfriend.

Helen and her sisters were on a Facebook group in 2013. They discussed Michael’s expressed concerns with the Awre family. On 22 December Helen said this:

“…dad may be perfectly rational in his theory. It is quite possible Charles has taken offence to dad in the past and has decided to use that as justification for harassing dad. I believe dad – he may be absolutely right. I think he needs to know that he is supported. Otherwise he may feel completely alienated’”

This exchange became quite critical and abusive as regards Charles Awre and the Awre family insofar as it related to their dealings with Michael. Helen’s explanation was that this was Facebook unfiltered, and that they believed Michael at this time. Helen expressly stated that ‘[Michael] has capacity’. She considered that the choices he was making appeared sensible; he was very convincing.

The erection of the CCTV made Michael feel safe. It showed nothing, but Michael could watch the CCTV.

Helen said she had contacted Dr Gibbs in February 2014 because of her concerns. Dr Gibbs was the family doctor, and she was at that time not medically qualified. She wanted to ‘pass the ball’. She wanted him diagnosed as that would mean he was in the system, and being cared for by medical professionals.

She accepted that Michael was incredibly upset on being sectioned. She thought that Michael would never forgive her for her involvement in the sectioning, communicating with her sisters shortly before:

“I’m extremely anxious about telling dada that a doctor is coming not going to tell him until just before. He is so calm at the moment and happy because my sister and mum have been there all morning my mum stayed with him the last night too. I just know he is going to get really distressed and that is going to break me. I can’t believe this is happening.”

When Michael was sectioned Joan was telling him that Helen was evil and wanted his money and his land. He was also being told not to take his medication. Helen thought that Sheila and Joan wanted to take control of Michael’s finances.

Helen accepted that she had made a complaint to the OPG alleging misappropriation of Michael’s money by Sheila; and that there had been an investigation by the OPG and that the complaint had not been upheld.

I considered that Helen was a clear and truthful witness who made appropriate concessions and thought about the evidence that she was giving before answering. Her historic comments about Charles Awre now appeared highly embarrassing to her, and that embarrassment was genuine. Her explanation for her change of view was credible, and her stance consistent with the contemporaneous evidence. That she was initially willing to believe ill of Charles Awre stemmed from her attachment to her father. I note also that Helen has complained about Michael’s capacity (in connection with the power of attorney) and Sheila’s probity (as regards her conduct as an attorney) and withdrew the first claim and her second was not established after an enquiry. I do not consider that these matters affect Helen’s credibility; in my view she believed the allegations that she was making. However, it does appear to me that her views of Joan and Sheila’s intentions are now and historically have been somewhat fixed and may be colouring her view of their past actions and its motivation. I will be cautious before relying on her views of them.

Caroline Gwilliam moved to Bath to go to university in 1998 and moved to London in 2004. After moving to London she would see her father at holidays, but otherwise they would speak on the phone. She described Michael as always a bit eccentric.

Her views of Sheila were not complimentary, describing her as domineering and that Michael seemed scared of her. She alleged that Sheila took Arthur’s estate leaving Michael with nothing, and after Arthur’s death Sheila controlled Jean and treated her terribly. Michael tolerated this as he was non-confrontational. Apart from becoming involved with Michael when he divorced Christine and when he was sectioned Sheila was not part of his life. As far as Joan was concerned, her father seemed quite scared of her but wanted company and someone to make him dinner. Caroline thought Joan was jealous of her father’s friendships with his family and would be in a bad mood and unduly critical of them. Joan’s relationship with Michael had ended well before 2014. She said that he had no real connection with Robert, and when he spoke of him it was in derogatory terms.

In February 2014 Caroline would speak to her father on the phone and be told of the noises he was hearing. Initially she believed this and would ring him every day to find out what was going on. He was extremely agitated, adamant that Charles Awre was keeping him up at night. She said he got worse after being discharged from hospital.

Caroline described her father as ‘not good at life admin’. He never worked for anyone other than himself, and always required someone to do admin for him. He said that ‘Sheila sorted the mortgage for me’ referring to the mortgage of the farm when Christine was bought out.

When Caroline visited her father in hospital he would maintain that ‘Joan was right; Helen got me locked up.’ He said that Sheila would get him out, or he would escape; he would get his gun; and he feared that they [the doctors] would inject him. He said that Robert told him that the noises were tinnitus, and that Robert said he would get him some tablets from Ebay. Caroline does not appear to have seen her father much if at all after his discharge from hospital.

According to Caroline her father had always been of the view that his estate would pass to his daughters and therefore did not need a will. They would watch the programme ‘Heir Hunters’ on television together and Michael would comment that ‘it goes to the right people’. She was shocked to hear of his 2014 will after his death.

Caroline was unshaken in cross-examination. Of the four sisters she lived away from the Forest, and as such had the least direct contact with their father. Notwithstanding that, I found her to be an impressive witness, careful not to give evidence beyond her knowledge and to explain her evidence when pressed. In my view her evidence is truthful and reliable.

Emily Gwilliam lived at the Farm until she was 19 when she moved to Lydney. She described her father as never having holidays, never staying away and living in his overalls and wellies. As well as his antiques and car interests he had some livestock on the farm.

In 1992 the Farm had been burgled whilst the family was asleep, and after that Michael was always worried out future break ins and the security of the Farm.

Emily’s view of Sheila was that she did not have much of a connection with Michael, taking advantage of Michael to obtain MOT certificates for her vehicles, was boastful of her family and forceful, bossy and aggressive when on the phone to Michael. Michael thought Robert was lazy.

She described Joan’s family as ‘conspiring for Joan to be Dad’s girlfriend’. When she moved in she was rude, aggressive and abusive towards her father, or would give him the ‘silent treatment’. She said that her father grew up in a culture where men were looked after and he felt trapped with Joan and struggled to be on his own. Joan would do his cooking and a bit of cleaning and Michael was reliant on this.

In 2007 Emily had acquired a holistic therapy qualification and provided services for ladies. Her father telephoned her and asked if she was ‘massaging men’ and suggested she was offering sexual services. He said he had been told this by Joan. Emily had to deny the allegation.

In 2010 or 2011 Michael’s relationship with Joan came to an end. She moved to her property in Lydney and was thereafter rarely at the Farm. Her father seemed happier in himself and more calm. Her father was well and appeared to be happy until Christmas 2013 or thereabouts. He appeared to be in some financial difficulty from about 2011 but was grateful that Christine had assisted him financially. From January 2014 he would telephone Emily and tell her he could hear knocking and banging in the night, saying someone was banging on the boards of the windows at the side of the house. When Emily went round for a cup of tea her father would sit down and then get up again and go to the porch because of the noises he said he was hearing. This happened day and night constantly, asking Emily whether she heard what he heard. He was convinced it was Charles Awre who was knocking on the windows and driving around the roads, but Emily did not believe Charles Awre would behave in that manner and knew him to be living in Cheltenham. Her father was not sleeping and was falling over and hurting himself. He was delusional and hallucinating. He had gone from being someone who always sought to keep the peace to someone quite scary to be around. He had totally and rapidly changed.

On the day Michael was sectioned Emily spoke to him on his phone. He was agitated and did not want to go to hospital as he hated hospitals. When she saw him in hospital he was agitated because he had been told by Joan and Sheila that Dr Gibbs had acted illegally.

After his discharge Emily would see her father at the Farm, on occasion taking her children. She said that on one occasion Sheila had telephoned and shouted to Michael to get Emily and her family out of the Farm, which he did. He seemed beholden to Joan and Sheila. Again, Michael would hear things that were not there. He stood outside the house and asked Emily if she could hear a donkey that had been put on a trailer on the other side of the village. She described him as tormented by his imagination.

In March 2014 Michael told Emily that Sheila and Joan had told him that Christine was taking things from the Farm. In April 2014 Joan phoned Michael, and Emily overheard her telling Michael that Helen was not his daughter. Later she had heard her mother have a loud argument over the phone with Sheila over whether Michael was ill. Emily then drove to Coleford, as she was aware that was where Sheila and Joan had taken him. She saw them in the street and confronted them. Michael grabbed Emily and walked her back to her car. Joan and Sheila kept repeating that Michael’s sectioning was illegal and staged, and this continued for years.

By November or December 2014 Michael was completely isolated. He was frequently away from the Farm. By early 2015 he was never there, and his dogs were taken to Christine’s for their care. He could not be contacted by phone. Joan and Sheila were telling him what to do and not to talk to or see his children and Christine.

Michael never wanted to make a will and indeed hated discussing it or his possible death. Emily had tried to talk about this to him in 2012 or 2013, but he had refused to engage at all. He was a stubborn character, stuck on his views and adamant that he did not need to prepare a will.

Cross examined and asked whether Michael was fond of Sheila, she said that they were brother and sister, but not as close as brother and sister might be. It was put to Emily that after Michael’s sectioning he trusted her, and not her sisters. She said that her father would say that Helen sectioned him, or that all you girls locked me up. He was fixed in his ideas.

Emily accepted that she had phoned the police to complain about Joan harassing Michael and had denied to Michael that she had made that complaint. She did that because she did not want her father to know for fear of how it might affect him; she accepted that he would probably have been very upset. She thought that both Sheila and Joan had an agenda and might seek a power of attorney over Michael’s affairs. She had heard from both her mother and father that Sheila had been very irresponsible with Jean’s money.

She accepted that she had encountered Joan in Coleford but maintained that she simply touched Joan on the shoulder. She did shout; she was angry at Sheila and Joan for what they were doing to her father.

Referred to the Facebook posts in early 2014 she accepted that she was critical of Charles Awre. That was because of her father’s complaints and criticisms. She accepted saying some horrible things about Joan to her father. She did not think this would have upset him; sometimes he agreed with her.

Although Emily was clear in her evidence, she underplayed her role in the fracas with Joan in Coleford. She demonstrated clear animus against Joan. I approach her evidence with a degree of caution accordingly.

Georgina Charles said that her father was not born to be a father of daughters, but he had a softer side. When she was growing up at home her father imposed few boundaries. He was very patient. When her parents separated her father did not want to argue and went with the flow. She maintained a close relationship with her father until 2015. Although she left home in 1995 she would visit the farm to see him from time to time, saying there was often a cross-over of sisters. They would speak on the phone most days. In 2012 he started having difficulty paying his bills. Christine now helped out and a record of payments was kept so that Michael could repay her whenever the Farm was sold.

Joan she described as stroppy, and her father as treading on eggshells in her presence. Her father would pander to her. Although she moved into the Farm she never moved in fully, having her own room. Georgina moved out relatively quickly after Joan moved in. In about 2000 after Joan and Michael had an argument Joan got a house in Lydney. Joan kept her flat but started going back to see Michael when he offered to buy her a car. She tended to leave the Farm when Georgina or the sisters arrived to see their father.

In 2005 Michael told Georgina that Joan had evidence that Georgina had been selling cocaine. This was utterly untrue. Michael and Joan’s relationship ended in about 2010. Joan bought a bungalow and moved into it, although they still saw each other, but far less.

Sheila lived in Bath and typically only visited at Christmas. Their relationship was distant. Sheila used Michael for her convenience often bringing her car up for an MOT to be prepared by Michael. She described Sheila as becoming possessed when Michael was sectioned. She saw Sheila shouting at her father when they went to visit Christine, telling him that Christine and her daughters had had Michael sectioned; and that they wanted all of his money and the Farm.

In early 2014 Michael started having delusions. She visited him one evening; Michael was pointing to the field and saying ‘Look, they’re in the field, can you hear them?’. Georgina told him that they were just lights, but he would not believe her. He was unable to do his personal shopping as he would forget his card or PIN. They tried to reassure and calm him down, but he was angry which was unlike him, paranoid about the neighbours and constantly walked around with an air rifle. He was adamant that it was Charles Awre who was responsible.

Georgina would visit the farm after the sectioning. Michael was on occasion empathetic and would then tell her she had to leave. He would ‘flip the switch’. As an example of this attitude, in June 2014 Georgina suffered an event that caused her very severe personal distress. Michael would veer from being sympathetic and reassuring, to blaming her for her misfortune and saying he did not care about it. She remembered Robert telling Michael he had tinnitus, as did Joan. Georgina would try to persuade him that the noises he heard were not tinnitus but could not. He would hear noises from the upstairs room, and in the garden he would say he saw lights and cars. None were there.

In early March 2014 the daughters could not contact their father by phone. Georgina went to the farm and asked her father where his phone was. Michael said that the doctors had given him the all clear; she had no right to be in the farm; she could not have his new phone number; he did not want her contacting him, and that he had to keep the number a secret. In March 2014 when the daughters were at the Farm, Sheila rang and told Michael to get his daughters out of there. She said that they were not his family and that her, Sheila’s sons, were his family.

Michael would speak to Sheila on speakerphone. Georgina heard Sheila repeatedly say that Helen was to blame, she had had Michael locked up and was lying to him. Michael would agree and repeat the comments back to Sheila. Michael’s attitude to his daughters was that they were evil, thieves who had stolen from him. He maintained that Christine had stolen his antiques. He accused his daughters and Christine of locking him up for their own mercenary purposes. His anger was primarily focussed on Helen.

In October 2014 Georgina phoned her father to tell him that she had become engaged to her boyfriend. Michael accused her of stealing a Tiffany style antique lamp from him. Georgina could hear Joan telling him this. In fact she had paid him £20 for it in April. Michael appeared to accept this but would subsequently make the allegation again.

Although it post-dates the will, it is I think material that in June 2016 Georgina was married. Joan was in the room when Georgina asked her father to walk her down the aisle. He refused, saying he did not want to be there as Christine would be there.

When Georgina bought her first flat in 2005 she considered making a will and discussed this with her father. Michael said he would not consider making a will. They would thereafter on occasions watch the television programme ‘Heir Hunters’ together. Michael’s expressed view was that ‘it always goes to the right place’; and that it would always go to his daughters. Christine tried to take him to a solicitor in Lydney in 2012 to make a will, but although she got him into the business he left after a few minutes. It was not for him.

Cross-examined, Georgina told me that the offer from Mr. Trenchard was a good one. Mr. Trenchard is two years younger than Georgina – he was certainly not her mother’s boyfriend.

Referred to the Facebook chat, she said she was unhappy that her father was being left out by the Awres if his hedges were not being cut. She believed what her father told her in December 2013. Later conversations in December 2013 showed that she was concerned that Michael did not have a will and she was angry and upset that Sheila and Joan were intervening in Michael’s life. She was concerned that it would be Sheila and not the sisters who would ‘gain control’ by which she was referring to Michael’s health, not his property. She accepted that she had made unpleasant comments about Sheila and Joan in the Facebook chat; her explanation was that she was stressed out and emotional. By October 2014 Georgina was expressing unhappiness with Michael. She said that he was accusing her of all sorts and could not be reasoned with, He was even nasty about her very personal difficulty at that time. Then he would change. Georgina would go to cut his hair, and he would be pleasedto see them, but then he would change again, saying that Helen was not his daughter and that Helen locked him up.

About the argument over the collection of Michael’s goods, Georgina said that after Sheila had driven off, Michael had come into Christine’s house for a piece of fruitcake and a cup of tea. Michael was trying to keep the peace.

Georgina found giving evidence particularly difficult. I doubt that her recollection is as good as she initially presented in the witness box, and she was plainly embarrassed by some of her contemporaneous opinions in the Facebook chat. In my view she was an honest witness, but prone to give evidence that she thought must have been the case rather than necessarily was the case.

Christine Gwilliam told me that during her marriage to Michael the relationship between herself and Sheila was benign, and good. There was no animosity or strain. Sheila and her partner and children would visit them on Boxing Day. Their divorce became difficult after Sheila became involved as Arthur’s administrator, and alleged that Michael and Christine were liable for a bridging loan paid by Arthur on the acquisition of New House Farm. Christine said that the allegation was not taken any further and on decree absolute an order was made providing for New House Farm to be sold and the sale proceeds to be divided between her and Michael. The remaining items at New House Farm listed on a Bruton Knowles inventory in 1994 were jointly owned. Most remained at the Farm.

At the time of their divorce Christine had asked Michael whether he had made a will. He said he did not need to as the ‘heir hunters’ would sort it out. His daughters would get his estate. In August 2013 Christine made an appointment for Michael to speak to a local solicitor about a will. She took him there but he left after ten minutes saying that he did not wish to make a will.

Christine and Michael remained friends after the divorce. She saw him frequently; he would call in to see her and she would occasionally cook for him. Michael spent a lot of time with Helen, who would cook for him and spend time with him most weeks, usually at New House Farm.

In early 2013 Michael told Christine he was unable to afford the mortgage repayments on New House Farm. Christine offered to and did make contributions to the mortgage and the electricity and oil costs. These payments were lent, not given and Christine (who had worked in the Land Registry) placed an RX1 restriction on the title to the Farm to protect the repayment. She and her partner would visit Michael on most days and do odd jobs in the house and garden. She described the house as in a state, with Michael appearing to have lost interest in his home and garden.

In September 2013 Michael instructed Kevin Toombs to market the farm. He met with Michael and Christine and asked Michael what the minimum offer was that Michael would accept. Michael said £540,000, which was the maximum that the buyer, Mr. Trenchard, would pay for the Farm. Michael was happy with the amount. On the next day Christine visited Michael at the farm; Michael said that he had not agreed to the sale and had telephoned Joan who had told Michael that the amount agreed was ‘Mickey Mouse money’. Christine, who was upset and disappointed, left. Subsequently Michael told Christine, over the phone, that Joan was accusing Christine of conspiring with David Awre, Mr. Trenchard’s brother-in-law.

In January 2014 Christine’s daughters told her about Michael’s behaviour – staying out all night, falling over and having delusions of people knocking on his door. Christine paid for a CCTV camera to be installed. It fed a TV screen which Michael could see. There was no pass code for it.

After Michael’s sectioning Christine was told by her daughters that Joan blamed Michael’s daughters for his restraint, and that Joan and Sheila told Michael that Helen was evil, and trying to sell the Farm for their own gain. Michael was distressed and refused to accept treatment.

Michael asked Christine to look after his dogs, his gun and his house whilst in hospital. She agreed to and did do that. She said that she took some items that were on display from his house and moved them to her house as she was worried about them being stolen.

Sheila called Christine on 6 March and asked her about the items that she had removed from the Farm. Christine asked Sheila to drive over to her home and speak about it. When she visited Christine gave her a letter dated 1 March 2007 from Michael’s then solicitors to her then solicitors, which stated that ‘Mr. Gwilliam is happy to meet with Mrs. Gwilliam to arrange the division of the items of property from the former matrimonial home’. Sheila screwed it up, said that Christine had had enough from the settlement, and left. Christine returned the items she had taken the next day. Sheila wrote to Christine on 14 April 2025 alleging that she had returned only part of the property taken; had stolen Michael’s property including pictures from the walls and Arthur’s personal watch.

About a week after his discharge from hospital Michael told Christine that Sheila had told him not to take the medication prescribed for him.

Cross-examined about the removal of the chattels from the Farm, Christine said that she had been given the keys by Michael to look after the dogs and the house. She thought it was a good idea to remove the valuable chattels for security. This was her idea; Michael did not know she was doing this. She denied removing his paperwork.

In my view Christine gave her evidence in a straightforward manner, although plainly anxious when giving her evidence. She harbours a profound dislike of Sheila, and I think deliberately underplayed that. I consider that she would have regarded Sheila’s intervention in her divorce as highly unwelcome and grasping. However, her evidence was not significantly shaken in cross-examination.

Richard Brown is a 59 year old mechanic, who has known and been a friend of Michael’s since he was 15 years old. They became friends over Michael’s love of old machinery. Between 2010 and 2014 he would see Michael every other weekend, and they would speak on the phone. Michael did not speak fondly of Joan and appeared reluctant to speak of his daughters in front of her. Before he was sectioned Michael called him in the small hours of the morning saying that he was having trouble with people outside his house, throwing stones at it. Mr. Brown believed him.

He visited Michael in hospital. Michael said that Helen was trying to get him locked up and Joan agreed with him. It was the first time he had ever heard Michael say something bad about the girls.

After discharge Michael again phoned Mr. Brown complaining of people throwing stones and shining torches. He went around to the Farm but saw no one. Mr. Brown agreed to bring his camper van to the Farm and to stay there, which he did for six weeks. At times in the small hours Michael would tell him to look through his hedge to see someone, but there was no one there. Michael was convinced there was, and could not be persuaded otherwise. Mr. Brown thought that Michael’s mental state had taken a steep decline. He would hear Michael banging his spade against his shed. He described him as a shell of his former self, making simple mistakes about property and people.

He told Joan about the delusions but Joan said that Michael was telling the truth. He met Sheila and told her about Michael and that there was no factual basis for them. Sheila said this was nonsense. Joan, who was present, was silent and acted as if nothing was wrong. It was put to him that this conversation did not take place. He maintained that it did.

I found Mr. Brown to be an entirely straightforward and credible witness on whose evidence I can rely.

Mark Webster is a teacher, now semi-retired, who was a friend of Michael’s over shared interests such as classic cars for about 30 years. He described Michael as a strong and real character who would always speak his mind. He would see Michael periodically, from 1997 about once a month.

Mr. Webster said Michael always had a good relationship with his daughters and would speak highly of them. Mr. Webster said that Michael always told him that everything was to go to the four daughters

As for Sheila, Michael told him that she had taken over after the divorce from Christine, and the main intention (the inference is Sheila’s intention) was that Christine would not get anything. Michael was happy for her to get something because he thought it would eventually benefit his daughters. He never thought there was anything serious between Michael and Joan. Joan never moved in and in the latter years was not around and stayed less and less frequently. He was shocked to hear that Joan was a beneficiary under the will.

In 2014 he thought that something was not right with Michael. Michael thought he was under siege at home. He said his cars were being vandalised. As an antiques dealer he would ask for extortionate amounts for his items and then virtually give away to a stranger. He complained about a neighbour who was harassing him, but that neighbour had been dead for five years or so. Michael appeared delusional, shaking, frightened and timid.

Mr. Webster was an impressive witness whose evidence was not shaken in cross examination. It was given clearly and with evident sadness. I accept his evidence as his honest recollection and that I can rely on it.

Paul Jolley is a Registered Mental Health Nurse who qualified in 1994 and works as part of the Community Mental Health Recovery Service in Gloucestershire. He visited Michael on 27 occasions between April and December 2014 and got to know him very well. On his discharge home he was referred to the Crisis Team as he had been diagnosed with Organic Persistent Delusion Disorder. The cause was not known, but a stroke was suspected. He first met Michael at the Farm with Dr Tan. Michael was not hostile but believed he was being harassed. He did not think there was anything wrong with him, and neither did Sheila.

Michael thought his daughters, in particular Helen, were to blame for his sectioning. He thought they wanted to get him into hospital so they could remove his antiques from the Farm. This belief was fixed throughout Mr. Jolley’s involvement with Michael. Mr. Jolley would gently suggest that this was unlikely, but he would not accept it. Michael reported incidents of harassment at the Farm, with people banging on his door late at night and revving their car engines. Michael said that his neighbours wanted to buy the Farmhouse but would not pay sufficient; were doing this in an underhand way; he was being harassed by them; and his daughters were involved in that.

After discharge Michael was prescribed anti-psychotic medication. This made him drowsy and he did not want to take it. Sheila was more against Michael’s taking the medicine than anyone. Michael could be persuaded from time to time to take it, and by November 2014 Joan was ensuring that Michael took his medication.

Mr. Jolley was not aware that Michael had arranged for solicitors to visit on 4 November 2014. He maintained that he was not asked to assess or opine on Michael’s capacity, and that had he been asked he would have had to have carried out a formal capacity assessment, and he did not. Michael understood he was writing a will, and could manage his own affairs, but there was no question but that his judgment had been impacted.

He considered that Sheila was protective of Michael’s well-being, but she did not acknowledge that his beliefs were delusional and did not consider he had any mental health problems. Joan was Michael’s main carer during the period of Mr. Jolley’s involvement. He heard both Sheila and Joan fuelling and encouraging Michael’s delusions, telling him the daughters had stolen possessions from the Farm. Sheila was the dominant force.

Mr. Jolley was present on 18 November when the police investigated Michael’s complaints. The discussion with the Police confirmed his view that Michael was suffering delusions.

Cross examined, he said that he did not have much contact with Christine or the daughters as he required Michael’s consent to do that, and Michael would not give it because he felt that they had orchestrated his admission to hospital.

As to Michael’s delusions, he said that he would normally give a patient the benefit of the doubt even if the manifestations were implausible, but Michael’s were extreme. Had Michael discovered that Christine had removed his chattels without his consent whilst in hospital this would have fuelled his delusion and grievance.

As to the relationship between Joan and Michael, Mr. Jolley said that Michael knew that he would be lost without her. Michael had many needs. He thought both Joan and Sheila were genuinely concerned for Michael’s well-being. They both had the same attitude to his medication. Had he been asked to assess Michael’s mental capacity he would have done this formally. It would be carried out in a formal setting. That was part of the safeguarding that is carried out. As a formal test the result is recorded. It is the same system presently in use as was the case in 2014. He was never asked to do this for Michael. He accepted that he had carried out the Addenbrooks assessment in 2018 which is very similar to a capacity assessment. The events of 4 November were unusual because Joan was talking about the will. It was the only time he had visited a patient and a solicitor had also attended. They spoke pleasantries but he could not get on with his job, which was to discuss Michael’s medication, and which was confidential. He accepted that his recollection of the day was not good. He did not recall anything about the will, although he did recall talk about the sectioning. He would not have had consent from Michael to discuss his capacity with Sheila or Joan.

My view of Mr. Jolley’s evidence was that he gave a careful account of matters as he recollected them. He was a little diffident about the events of 4 November 2014 consistent with the passage of time, and also the present apparent centrality of his role in the making of the will, but he was unshaken as to the material parts of his evidence, that he did not advise anyone that Michael was competent to make a will; and that he did not consider that Michael would have been able to make a valid will. Although he was called as a witness of fact and not as an expert, his factual observations were particularly valuable and acute in the present circumstances.

Charles Awre is a 32 year old car salesman who lives and works in Cheltenham. In 2005 he was living in Awre and met Michael when he went to buy a scrap car from him. They had a shared interest in fixing cars and would go and visit him to fix the cars. Michael’s relationship with Sheila did not seem to be particularly good. They seemed to have some sort of ‘beef’. Mr. Awre had a good relationship with Michael’s daughters, particularly Georgina who cut his hair.

In 2012 he moved away to Minsterworth, but at some time before then their friendship came to an end when Michael had apparently left his car keys on Mr. Awre’s car seat where Mr. Awre found them and returned them. Michael’s response was to accuse Mr. Awre of stealing them. He considered that Michael’s behaviour and character changed from 2010 or 2011, when he became forgetful, abrupt and quick to anger. His driving became erratic.

Cross-examined, Mr. Awre told me there was no bad blood between his family and Michael. They got on. In 2013 he was living in Cheltenham. It was certainly not him who was causing problems for Michael. He knew from his father that Michael was throwing around accusations about the Awre family, but he did not know that at the time, only when he was asked to give evidence in this case. He was aware that kids would cycle through the village late at night and throw stones. He described Michael as a kind man who would do anything for anyone. He did not have a bad word to say about him.

I found Mr. Awre to be an honest and clear witness whose evidence I could rely on unequivocally.

Sheila Gwilliam is Michael’s sister. After secondary education Sheila moved to Bath. Michael would visit her and she him; she described him as a ‘real son of the Forest [of Dean]’. He loved antiques and motor cars.

She described Christine as conniving and calculating, noting that Christine’s mother was the same and ‘an apple does not fall far from the tree’. As to the relationship between Michael and Christine, she said that Michael had doubts as to Helen’s paternity, but he treated her as if she was his daughter at all times. She said that there was antipathy between herself and Christine right from the beginning. She said that her mother was frightened of Christine because of the way she was treated by and spoken to by her. Towards the end of her life Jean suffered from Alzheimer’s and lived with Sheila in Bath. On one occasion she had taken Jean to stay with Michael but had to collect her as Jean, who was incontinent and could be difficult, had run away after being as Sheila put it ‘forcibly showered’ by several of the daughters. Sheila found this shocking behaviour by those daughters, saying that she had no idea why they would treat their grandmother in this way but that. Knowing them as she did, it was exactly the sort of behaviour they would show.

She recounted that at the end of her life Jean had been hospitalised. When she attended hospital she discovered that Caroline had persuaded the staff to turn off Jean’s life support system. Sheila insisted that it be reinstated and Jean lived for a further year.

When New House Farm was purchased she understood that Michael and Christine were to take out a mortgage to repay Arthur’s contribution to the purchase money. That led to a dispute on their divorce. Sheila denied wrongfully taking any money from the administration of Jean’s estate.

Michael’s divorce was acrimonious. Christine had tried to cheat him by getting him to sign a document with a carbon paper hidden underneath, producing a further signed document. She alleged that the Claimants and Christine had removed a number of valuable antiques and porcelain items when Michael was hospitalised in early 2014, together with his personal papers. She said that due to the divorce settlement the chattels left with Michael were all his, not Christine’s.

Sheila gave evidence about a trust that had been settled in 1976 (‘the Liddington Trust’) of which Jean was one of five beneficiaries. On Jean’s death Michael and Sheila became entitled to one half each of Jean’s one fifth share. In June 2022 the trustees paid Sheila £190,000 and then a further £100,000. Michael’s share is being held pending the resolution of this case.

Concerning the sale of a field that Michael owned in Awre, Michael told Sheila that the prospective purchaser, Mr. Trenchard, was a former boyfriend of Christine’s. Michael said he was being bullied into the sale because Mr. Trenchard owned a fish and chip van and he wanted the field to grow potatoes for his chips. I would add that this part of Sheila’s evidence seemed somewhat confused to me. The sale that appears to have prompted Michael’s dissatisfaction was the sale of New House Farm to Mr. Trenchard. If there was a proposed or actual sale of a field, that would appear to have been a quite different sale.

Michael would not have sold his property to Charles Awre as it was well known that he had a very dubious reputation in the area. Michael knew of the stories about him. He had dispensed with Charles Awre’s services because he found some of his personal property in Charles Awre’s car. Sheila considered that Charles Awre would want revenge for this slight.

Michael told Sheila about hearing noises of people banging on his window; marks on the boards he had put up on his windows; footprints outside and light being shone on his property.

Christine had had CCTV installed at the farm, but she had the passcode necessary for access to the recordings. Sheila had taken the camera to Bath. Christine had deliberately refused to give her the code.

The first Sheila knew of Michael being sectioned was a phone call from Joan Brooks. She drove to the hospital. Michael was lucid, calm and normal. Michael was never agitated, aggressive, confused or argumentative. He showed no signs of mental disorder. A nurse on the ward told Sheila that Michael should not be in hospital. She did not try to dissuade Michael from taking his medication. She and Robert were concerned that some prescribed drugs might be inappropriate for Michael. Michael told Sheila that he was scared of Helen; that she was misusing her authority and knowledge as a nurse; and that she was the ringleader in his sectioning in 2014 and had exaggerated matters.

When Sheila discovered that Christine had taken Michael’s valuables from his house she challenged her. Christine said the items had been removed for safe keeping as they were uninsured. Sheila drove with Michael to Christine’s home, by appointment, to retrieve them. She found Christine’s family there and was intimidated, due to their aggressive behaviour and left.

Michael never discussed the contents of his will with Sheila save for asking her to be his executor. She thought it was natural for Michael to appoint Robert as an executor as well, as he trusted him very much. She did not seek to influence Michael as to his testamentary dispositions in any way. She described the beneficiaries of the residuary estate as basically all the people who had meant anything to him in his lifetime. It was typical of him to include a forfeiture clause if anyone challenged his will.

Michael came to live with Sheila at his request when he became concerned that Christine and his daughters were planning to have him placed in hospital again. He said that there was nothing wrong with him, but they were conspiring against him as they wanted to control all of his money. Whilst Michael was living with Sheila the police or social services would turn up unannounced to check that Michael was not being abused. They were always satisfied with Michael’s care. Sheila believed these visits were caused by malicious complaints made by Christine and the daughters.

Sheila gave evidence of the incident with Emily in Coleford High Street. Emily had barged Joan to the floor and then shouted at her. Michael marched Emily away, and Emily subsequently wrote a note of apology to Joan.

Cross-examined, Sheila corrected her witness statement to say that it was not Mr. Trenchard who was seeking to buy a field from Michael, but Christine’s boyfriend at the time.

Asked whether there were good reasons for not selling the Farm to Mr. Trenchard she said Michael was worried, they were friends of Christine and Michael said that he didn’t trust anybody. Sheila had not been involved with this sale; she only gave a little bit of advice here and there.

As far as Michael’s sectioning was concerned she said that Helen was ‘wielding the baton’ and orchestrating it. The whole thing made her very angry.

On being taken to a medical note dated 21 February 2024 which recorded her demanding that Michael no longer take his prescribed drug (Risperidone) as it was dangerous, she said that this was strange; she had only found out about that drug in the last few months and denied telling the hospital to stop it. She told me that she was a believer in non-medication; that medication must be prescribed in the proper way, and if there is anything wrong with you you should get to the core of the problem, not just hand out pills. She did not remember the conversation she is recorded as having later that day when she visited Michael. She did not tell him not to take his medication but simply gave him advice and questioned his medication. She contended that most of what is set out in the medical notes during Michael’s sectioning in hospital in not accurate.

Sheila sent Helen a voicemail on 28 February 2014 which is worth setting out in full:

“I want to know what you’re doing calling on Michael with a crisis team. Are you going to do that, play your little game again? Because you had better not! Michael is perfectly alright. Don’t all you family visit him? Especially children. He is tired, he has been traumatised by what you have all done to him. Just leave him alone. Otherwise you will have me to answer for in a very very severe way. So just leave your father alone. You have already committed a crime by putting him in there. Don’t do anything that you will regret Helen. Goodbye. I am going to reiterate Helen just stay away from Michael. Christine and her boyfriend stay away from him. He doesn’t deserve your aggro. I am very very upset”

Asked whether she was threatening Helen, she said ‘not physically’. But she might have written a nasty letter.

As to the drafting of the will, she accepted that she must have been present when instructions were given by Michael. She denied telling Michael not to make provision for his daughters. She and Joan had given Michael a lift to the solicitors when the will was executed.

She maintained that she could not access the CCTV recordings because it required a passcode and Christine would not give it to her. She did not recall when she asked. Her lawyers had not asked for it.

I have severe doubts about the accuracy of Sheila’s evidence. It was given forcefully, brooking little challenge. It is inconsistent with the medical notes, which record Sheila requiring that Michael not be given prescribed medication and insisting that he is not unwell. I have no doubt that she harbours a very severe animus towards Christine in particular and more latterly with her daughters. Some of her evidence (that Caroline directed medical staff to remove Jean’s life support, and that they acquiesced) I find utterly implausible given that Caroline was not Jean’s next of kin; that this would be the decision of a next of kin after medical advice had been given; and Caroline would not have had any reason to give such direction. My conclusion is that Sheila is at best mis-remembering garbled memories by reason of her unshakeable belief that Christine and the daughters are conspiring to steal Michael’s property and subvert his wishes, and to that end believes anything that would blacken them and their character. Where the evidence of Sheila differs from that of either Christine or the daughters in the absence of evidence corroborating Sheila’s evidence I can give it little if any weight.

Joan Brooks met Michael in 1995 and they got on well. Her evidence was that she moved into New House Farm in Awre. His income was up and down, and she helped with income from her employment, paying off debts, paying for food and paying the council tax. In 2011 Joan decided to rent a property of her own. She would cook an evening meal for Michael, and afterwards Michael would go back to New House Farm to feed his dogs.

In 2013 Helen visited Joan. She was at that time a trainee nurse and was dressed in her nurse’s uniform but had hidden her badge. She accused Joan of being mentally disturbed. Joan required her to leave and spoke to Michael about the visit. Michael apologised and called Helen ‘a bitch’. Having heard Helen’s account of this alleged event, I am of the view that it did not happen.

As to the possible sale of the farm to Mr. Trenchard, Joan’s cousin, Michael told Joan he was being put under great pressure to sell but the offer was at a ‘knock down price’ and nothing like the value he was told by the estate agents to expect. Joan said that when it was sold the Farm was in fact sold for much nearer the asking price.

On the day before Michael was sectioned he had been called back to the farmhouse from Joan’s house by a call from Georgina, who was insistent he return. She said that she knew that Michael was frightened of some of his daughters and particularly his ex-wife. He could be easily intimidated by them, which was something she had seen on occasions.

Sheila went to the farmhouse as Michael was being sectioned. There were armed police present. They were not taking matters seriously. Michael was neither armed nor dangerous. He felt that his sectioning had been planned by his daughters and his ex-wife. He spoke with Joan on the phone whilst in hospital. He appeared lucid; there was no indication he had a serious mental health problem. He told Joan he had been given a tablet which had knocked him out. He had given Christine his keys to enable her to check on the dogs.

After his discharge he initially ate with Joan, but after a while he stayed with Joan full time. He was angry with his daughters, especially Helen, for arranging for his sectioning. Michael was very fond of his dogs. After he had been sectioned he came home to find his two dogs missing. They had been taken by Helen. She said that one evening later Paul Jolley had visited and told Michael and Joan that he thought that Helen had removed the dogs as part of a ploy so that Michael would have a breakdown and be re-sectioned. According to Joan, this was exactly the sort of thing that Helen would do.

Having heard Mr. Jolley give evidence I am in no doubt that he had no conversation with Michael and Joan in these terms or to this effect. It is more likely that this reflected a conversation between Michael and Joan which, if it was in fact in Mr. Jolley’s presence (which I do not find to be the case) which he would not have wished to have been involved in but would have been viewed as an instance of Michael’s antipathy, post sectioning, towards Helen. I note also that the dogs were in fact taken by Christine; this appears to be an example of Michael and Joan blaming Helen for all of the adverse consequences of the sectioning as they saw it, and the perceived conspiracy between the daughters and Christine.

Joan received messages from the local police warning her about harassing Michael and his daughters. Michael discovered that a complaint had been made to the police about Joan’s behaviour by Emily, although Emily had denied being the source of the complaint.

Christine removed Michael’s chattels from the farmhouse but only returned a jardiniere. Their ownership was shown on a Bruton Knowles inventory which was within Michael’s papers.

Joan gave evidence that she had driven Michael to the farmhouse and saw a large light being shone on it from the direction of David Awre’s farmhouse. She had seen dents in the wooden boarding placed over a window, and footprints below it. She was told by a neighbour that David Awre and his son had been on their quad bikes in the field next to Michael’s house shooting foxes because their sheep were lambing; that would have explained the engine noises that Michael heard.

Michael’s eventual departure to Bath was precipitated by a woman visiting Michael and saying that he was to move to a care home. Sheila then came down to collect him at his request. She never saw Michael again, although they spoke regularly on the telephone.

Michael had never discussed his intentions in respect of his will. On the 4 November 2014 Michael had a discussion with the solicitor’s representative and gave his will instructions. Nobody interfered with the instructions or suggested that Michael was not mentally fit to give those instructions. Michael did not initially want to give his daughters anything, but it was Ms Costley who prompted him to leave them something. He decided they should have 25% of the residuary estate between them. It was Michael who insisted on the inclusion of the forfeiture clause. She had no doubt that his bequests were what he intended, and the beneficiaries were those people who meant anything to him.

She accompanied Michael to the solicitor’s office in Coleford where he executed the will. Joan wrote Michael’s letter of wishes about 6 to 8 weeks later, at Michael’s dictation, Michael not having been happy with his own first attempt.

Joan’s view of Michael’s daughters was that they were only interested in their father for his money and their potential inheritance. Their acts were unforgivable but show them in their true colours.

Under cross-examination Joan denied spreading rumours of false or salacious stories about the daughters. She accepted receiving a ‘cease and desist’ letter dated 16 April 2014 from Helen’s solicitors concerning an allegation made to the University of Gloucester that Helen was stealing Michael’s diazepam. The letter was in the following terms:

“Our client instructs us that you have in the past made false allegations against the daughters of Mr Gwilliam in an attempt to divide the family. More recently we are instructed that you have made specific damaging allegations against Helen Gwilliam.

Our client informs us that you have contacted the University of Gloucestershire where she is studying for a Nursing Degree and made allegations pertaining to our client stealing Mr Gwilliam’s diazepam medication.

This happened on Thursday 3rd April.

Prior to this on the 14th February you had sent a text to our client to say that you would [have] her expelled.

We are instructed that you have also tried to persuade Mr Gwilliam that it was our client who had him sectioned at Wotton Lawn.

The allegations that you have made have no foundation and are slanderous and the written text messages are libellous.”

So it did not simply make allegations about the Diazepam but also about Michael’s sectioning and referred to a text on the date of Michael’s sectioning threatening Helen’s course. Joan denied making the phone call or texting Helen. She said that she tried to telephone Helen’s solicitor, but he would not take the call so she thought no more of it and took no further steps. I found that explanation unlikely. Had Joan been wrongly accused she would have responded vigorously both by letter and vocally. That much appears from the background to the matter. On 2 April Emily had phoned Gloucester police to raise concerns about Sheila and Joan’s behaviour towards Michael. A police officer spoke to Joan and gave her ‘words of advice’. These were not accusatory but advised Joan and the other parties to cool the temperature and behave sensibly. I have no doubt that Joan would have been furious. She told me that these allegations were complete lies. She then volunteered that Helen had phoned her. She said that Michael had diazepam but could not find them. Joan thought ‘crafty bitch’. She though that Helen wanted her to provide his diazepam. She did not know whether Michael was on diazepam. Helen was playing on her emotions. She, Joan, would then be reported to the police by Helen. Joan plainly believed that this was part of Helen’s conspiracy, and most likely reacted to it by making the false allegation to her university.

As for the offer by Mr Trenchard, Joan said that it was Michael who told her by phone that it was a low offer. Joan did not know what the asking price was. Michael was not happy that Mr. Trenchard and Christine were working together to get the Farm.

She accepted that her phone number contacted the police on 3 February 2014 to report issues with Mr Awre but could not recall making the call. Neither did she recall contacting the police on 7 February. Taken to the transcript of the recording of the events of 12 February 2014 when the police attended the farm and Michael was on the phone to Joan, it recorded Michael telling Joan:

“I know you told me my love, you warned me. Yes, I know, yes, you told me what would happen, exactly what happened and you are on T. You are spot on. Helen was being deceitful, yep, yep, Helen, I am not having nothing more to do [with] her. You are being deceitful. She is being deceitful to her own father. She is being deceitful to me, so I am excluding her, she is out of it. She is out of it now. Yeah, Helen is here.”

She agreed that Michael was stressed, but until the sale of the farm he was OK. Joan did not tell Michael that Helen was deceitful; that was Michael telling Joan. She accepted that she probably did tell Michael that Helen was an evil woman.

Joan denied telling Michael not to take his anti-psychotic medication. She could not explain why the hospital notes recorded this. Michael could have said it even though Joan had not said it. She did say that if Michael had said bad things about his daughters she would have agreed with Michael.

Joan was taken to a letter dated 12 March 2014 from Dr Gibbs to Michael. That letter started:

“Dear Mr Gwilliam

Enclosed in the documentation that you requested yesterday. Today someone called Joan rang on your behalf requesting a letter to say that you [are] well and there is nothing wrong. That would be untrue.”

The letter went on to summarise the results of a head scan that Michael had had, showing a lacunar infarct (stroke) damaging Michael’s brain, and causing the symptoms that he had been presenting with. His condition was likely to worsen. The letter continued:

“You made it clear yesterday that you do not want to take medication; that you feel mentally well and you want no further input from mental health services. We expect that those around you will not agree with this and will want you to accept medical and social support but the choice is yours.”

Joan said she did not telephone the surgery and that anyone could have made that phone call. I do not see why anyone would have impersonated Joan, given that the demand being made was that which Joan would have considered reasonable and appropriate. I find that Joan did make this phone call to Dr. Gibbs.

Joan was taken to a letter from Dr Tan, dated 17 November 2014, which I have set out above. Joan told me that whilst she could not agree with Michael’s concerns as she never heard the noises, she never believed Michael was unwell. She could not say why Dr Tan said she thought Michael was unwell.

When it was put to her that she arranged the meeting with Julie Costley her response was ‘I suggest you prove it’. I find that she did arrange the meeting, and that she liaised with Gwyn James throughout. There was no direct communication between Michael and Gwyn James at any time save for the taking of instructions in person and the execution of the will.

I found Joan to be in significant respects an inaccurate and uncertain narrator of events and giver of evidence. I find that she wrote to the University of Gloucester making scurrilous allegations about Helen, which she either knew to be untrue or had no basis for believing to be true, and did so because she considered that Helen had involved the police in the dispute by alleging that she was stirring matters up between the daughters and Michael. It was done for the purpose of petty revenge. I make no findings in respect of the wicked and scurrilous rumours said to have been spread as regards the other daughters, but only because they are not directly pertinent to the issues in this case. I need only say that if anyone did spread those rumours I have not seen a grain of truth to justify any of them.

As with Sheila, I find that Joan generally believed Michael. Once Helen and the daughters started first doubting their father’s behaviour and perceptions and Michael had reacted badly to this and viewed Helen as an enemy, Joan in particular would have had a decision to make. She had had a relationship with Michael for many years. I do not think it is helpful to consider precisely what the nature of that relationship was in 2014, although that was debated in evidence. Michael to some degree continued to rely on Joan, and they appeared to enjoy each other’s company. Having heard Joan give evidence I consider it was always going to be unlikely that she would refrain from giving her opinion on the matter. Her choice was therefore to side with Michael or Helen, and she sided with Michael. Once she had done that then Helen became the enemy, as that was the logical consequence of Michael’s insistence that there was nothing wrong with him. As with Sheila, Michael’s views would have been reinforced by Joan’s comments to him. There were occasions when Joan said to doctors that she did not believe Michael; but these were statements made to professionals in forensic settings, and once out of those settings Joan returned to believing Michael’s perceptions as true, or as at the least caused by some physical phenomena such as tinnitus or super sensitive hearing.

Robert Mickleburgh is now 54.He said that in his youth he got on well with his cousins and Michael, who he liked. He saw his uncle less over time, in part because Michael would not travel, and in part because of his own commitments. He considered that his uncle was someone who did not seek confrontation.

His mother became concerned about Michael at the end of 2013 when Michael reported problems at his home.

After 2018 the daughters only visited him rarely at Bath, and Caroline not at all. In 2018 there was opposition to Robert and Sheila being appointed as Michael’s attorney under an executed enduring power of attorney document. That was resisted. The daughters made a complaint to the Office of the Public Guardian about Robert and Sheila’ custodianship, but that was found to be unfounded. On one occasion Helen attended and sought to examine Michael, which was refused. That encounter was surreptitiously filmed by the visitors.

Cross examined, Robert considered that Michael might be expressing his lived experiences, not any delusions, but he could not say. He said that Michal was super vigilant and quite protective about the Farm. Taken to the report Michael made to the Gloucester Constabulary in January 2014 alleging harassment against Charles Awre he said that he kept an open mind.

He had spent three nights at the farmhouse in January, when he saw Michael on high alert as he put it. Michael would say ‘Did you hear that?’ to him, but he had not heard anything. They would go outside and check. Michael did not stay up all night; he would come back inside and watch TV. Michael hated hospital, and it was in Robert’s view not a good idea to section him.

He was concerned about the appropriateness of the drugs prescribed for Michael, and ‘asked questions’ about it, as he put it. Neither he nor Sheila told Michael not to take his medication as far as he was aware. He did not tell Michael that his daughters had locked him up; or that they had taken his dogs; this all came from Michael to him.

All that he knew about the will was that Michael had asked him to be his executor. He did recall that Michael had said that he was unhappy with the daughters and would leave it all to the Cats’ Home, and that Sheila had said that he should give it to the girls. That statement directly contradicted his evidence in chief, where he said he never discussed the contents of his will with Michael, and I very much doubt that after the dispute arose over alleged harassment of Michael and the sale of New House Farm, which was the casus belli between Michael and the daughters, Sheila would have suggested this to Michael.

My view of Robert was that he was a cautious witness whose involvement in this dispute was relatively limited and, because he found himself in the middle of this dispute and gave every impression of not wishing to be there, was careful with the evidence that he gave. Save that his evidence as to his mother’s comment is most favourably considered a mis-recalled memory, I consider that his recollection is broadly an honest one although it may not be complete. He would be in a very difficult position were he to be critical of his mother, which he was not.

Julie Costley is an experienced paralegal having been employed for 22 years by Messrs Gwyn James, solicitors in Coleford, in connection with probate matters. On 4 November she attended the Farm to take instructions from Michael for his will. At the same time he was being attended by Mr. Maddocks, a solicitor from Gabb & Co, for other matters (to consider whether he had a claim for wrongful detention). Mr. Maddocks too is an experienced solicitor. (I would add that Mr. Maddocks has not been called as a witness). Ms Costley had previously been made aware of questions over Michael’s mental health and took instructions in the form of a pro forma Will Questionnaire and completed a will capacity checklist.

After her discussions with Michael she was entirely satisfied that he understood that he was making a will, the terms of that will and his testamentary intentions. She took advice from Paul Jolley who was present and confirmed that Michael had capacity. She noted the documentation accordingly. She said that Mr. Maddocks was also satisfied that Michael had capacity.

She then drew the will in accordance with his instructions and subsequently attended on him with a colleague. She read the will through with him; he confirmed that he was happy with the contents, appreciated the steps he was taking and wished to sign it, which he did.

Ms Costley was unfortunately not well at the time of the hearing, and her oral evidence was taken remotely by MS Teams.

She said that it was very possible that Joan had arranged the initial meeting on 4 November 2014. The file opening sheet gave Joan’s home address as a ‘care of’ address. She had not mentioned that Sheila and Joan were present in her witness statement because they were in a different part of the kitchen when instructions were taken. Besides the questionnaire, she did not produce any written attendance note on this occasion. It was now her practice to take an attendance note. She said that because of the reasons for excluding the daughters as set out on the will questionnaire (“I have gifted this way [or will] to my daughters due to their treatment in recent years”) she had suggested that a letter of wishes be drawn. He did not have one drafted at the time. As to the rationale for limiting the daughters’ entitlement, Ms Costley could not now recall beyond what was written. She could not recall whether detailed instructions were given at the time and she did not write them down. Having said that she could not recall Michael initially seeking to exclude the daughters entirely from the will, she then said that it was probable that she had suggested making provision for them.

She said that Michael had told her about his anti-psychotic medication but not that he was receiving them for delusions. As far his daughters were concerned, Michael told Ms Costley that he had been sectioned, and he believed this to be improper. Michael was adamant as to what he wanted and said it repeatedly. She relied on what Michael told her in coming to her assessment of capacity; but she also relied on the opinion of Mr. Maddocks and Mr. Jolley. She recalled asking Mr. Jolley for his opinion and writing it down when he gave it.

Taken to a telephone attendance note of 1 December 2014 attending Joan, discussing the terms of the will, Ms Costley agreed that it would be unusual to discuss the terms of a will with someone other than the testator, but said that she believed that Michael was with Joan at the time. Asked whether Joan was authorised by Michael to give instructions, Ms Costley said that she felt strongly that Joan was asked to speak to her on Michael’s behalf – which did not really answer the question.

Ms Costley told me that had she been given the Letter of Wishes at that meeting she would have continued in the same way. The letter of wishes showed a very distressed person, but that was not to say that the matters set out were not true.

I found Ms Costley to be a somewhat defensive witness, beyond that which might be expected when a professional person’s acts and expertise are being challenged. Her recollection of the events was, understandably given the passage of time, not good. I consider that she was an honest witness but not a wholly reliable one. I will comment on her practice in due course.

I turn next to the expert evidence. The court was provided with an expert report from Professor Chris Fox, professor in Clinical Psychiatry and a consultant in Old Age and Adult Psychiatry dated 4 June 2025 appointed as a single joint expert, and his response to Claimants’ and Defendants’ Part 35 questions dated 22 July 2025. He was not called for cross-examination.

Having reviewed (inter alia) the pleadings, the will, the associated Larke v Nugus disclosure, the deceased’s letter of wishes, police disclosure, Michael’s medical records, Michael’s diary and the witness statements in the case, Professor Fox noted that by the time he died, Michael had been diagnosed with organic persistent delusional disorder, late onset schizophrenia, persistent delusional disorder, mild cognitive impairment and dementia. He concluded, based on the records, that Michael would have been suffering from paranoid symptoms which would have affected his decision making over this estate. Applying the Banks v Goodfellow test, Professor Fox concluded that at the date of the execution of the will:

In response to the Part 35 questions, Professor Fox said that he had considered the possibility that the events reported might be true, but concluded that the record supported delusional thinking; that had Paul Jolley been asked to give an opinion as to Michael’s capacity to make a will he would have expected Mr. Jolley to provide information as to the diagnosis of delusional disorder. I was not quite sure what this answer means – either that Mr. Jolley would be expected to give some opinion, or that Mr. Jolley would have been expected to diagnose a delusional disorder. I do not think I can draw anything helpful from this remark. The claims he was referring to were claims on Michael’s estate. His reference to a perversion of his sense of right meant that Michael was impaired in his capacity to distinguish between morally good and bad actions. The natural faculties that were perverted were his faculty to use or manage his estate by will. The persistent delusional disorder was ‘organic’ because it arose from a medical condition affecting the brain. His late onset schizophrenia produced symptoms of fixed unshakeable beliefs and perceptual disturbances, or hallucinations.

There is a very large quantity of documentary evidence produced in this case, including medical records for Michael; social media; email communications; police reports and logs; Michael’s diaries; and other documents. Some I have already referred to. I will only refer to the documents that I consider the most salient.

On 7 February Dr Gibbs, Michael’s GP, phoned social services to express concerns about Michael’s behaviour as recounted to him by Helen. The note records:

On 11 February Dr. Gibbs referred the matter to the Crisis Response Home Treatment Team. He had seen Michael at the farmhouse; had heard Michael’s account concerning the intended sale of the farmhouse, and the harassment that he was experiencing, and his belief that he was being cheated and harassed by Charlie Awre. In the course of this discussion Michael obtained an air rifle and pointed it at Dr Gibbs and Helen, but not in a threatening manner. Dr. Gibbs considered there was no obvious cognitive deficit, but Michael was exhibiting paranoid delusions. The CRHTT planned to discuss the matter with a consultant and with the police. The police informed the CRHTT that they had no power to remove Michael’s air rifles but said they would attend the premises if requested.

On 12 February a mental health assessment was carried out at the farmhouse by Dr Vrabtchev. It recorded Christine and Helen as being present but taking no part in the assessment. As to the harassment it was noted that

“….his thoughts… although rational in some ways did not have any evidence in support and could be classed as delusional beliefs. [Michael] had no insight into the possibility that his auditory experiences that he had reported, and his beliefs might be a product of his perceptions rather than reality.”

The medical notes from the hospital on 12 February 2014 note that Michael considered that he was being persecuted by Charlie Awre; that the purpose of this was to induce him to sell the farmhouse; and that Charlie was the buyer. He did not want to remain in the hospital; he was ‘not guilty’, even though he was told he was not in prison.

On 20 February 2014 Michael was diagnosed with Organic Persistent Delusional Disorder caused by cerebro-vascular disease by Dr Ogden. A formal cognitive examination (Addenbrooke’s) was carried out on which Michael scored 79/100. Anything below 83 indicates dementia.

Dr Tan examined Michael with Joan present at an outpatients’ clinic on 29 July 2014. He stated that he still heard the revving of engines and that Joan heard it too; but Joan said she does not hear what he does. Michael said he believed Helen tricked Dr Gibbs into having him sectioned. He had started litigation against Christine, two of his daughters and Dr Gibbs. He was angry that Christine had removed a lot of things whilst he was in hospital.

On 28 August 2014 at a further outpatient review Michael admitted leaning on his car horn outside the Awre farm, which he said was in response to what they were doing to him. They revved their cars evening and night. He heard banging. He also heard this whilst with Joan at Lydney. Joan agreed that she had heard banging when at the farmhouse, and that Michael had heard revving at Lydney, but she had not.

On 16 October 2014 at a further outpatient review Michael recounted the harassment from his neighbours, revving up strimmers, diggers and motors at all hours of the day and night. The Awres had been colluding with another family in the area. He tried to record these noises, but his equipment was not sensitive enough to do so, even though the noises were loud. They hid themselves. On one occasion when he phoned Joan about the noise Joan went to its origin but could hear nothing. He said they had hidden themselves because Joan was there. They had followed him to Lydney.

At a further outpatient review on 17 November 2014 Michael maintained his evidence, and stated both that it was continuing, and that he wished to harm the Awre family. The police were doing nothing about their law-breaking. Dr Tan recorded that he tested Michael’s views which remained delusional in intensity, fixed and unshakeable. Michael considered his admission to Wotton Lawn psychiatric hospital to be criminal.

Michael had noted in his diary thatin January 2014 he recorded hearing noises, as follows:

“13 January 2014

Two knocks on porch at 6.45pm”

“20 January 2014

Rattle on TIN 9pm-9.25pm

Put river glass sheets by gate

Bottles etc. crates timber

To prevent him coming in

Left good foot print (camera)

“22 January 2014

C&B went to Glos to get CCTV Equipment all because of that idiot CA [goaded] by David Mark. They were conspiring before Christmas by my observations door on lawn”

The relevant legal tests for establishing or disproving testamentary capacity have recently been considered and summarised by Fancourt J in Goss-Custard v Templeman [2020] EWHC 632:

“12.

It is agreed that the law relating to testamentary capacity is as set out by the Court of Queen’s Bench in the case of Banks v Goodfellow (1869) LR 5 QB 549, as cited (with sub-paragraphing added) by the Court of Appeal in Sharp v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449. The requirements are: “…that a testator ‘[a] shall understand the nature of the act and its effects; [b] shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing; [c] shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect; and, with a view to the latter object, [d] that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, pervert his sense of right, or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties – that no insane delusion shall influence his will in disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of it which, if the mind had been sound, would not have been made.”…”

13.

It is important to note that where, in the Banks v Goodfellow formulation, reference is made to the “understanding” or “comprehension” of the testator, that is not a reference to what they actually remember but rather a requirement that they have the capacity to understand and comprehend such matters: “capacity depends on the potential to understand. It is not to be equated with a test of memory….” (Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280, at [40-42], per Lewison LJ).

As far as the fourth limb of Banks v Goodfellow, freedom from delusions, is concerned, in Re Broughton (1873) LR 3 P&D 64 a test for delusionary beliefs was set out in the following terms:

“You must of necessity put to yourself this question and answer it, ‘Can I understand how any man in possession of his senses could have believed such and such a thing?’ And if the answer you give is, ‘I cannot understand it,’ then it is of the necessity of the case that you should say that the man is not sane.”

(At p.68, Sir J, Hannen)

In Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (ChD) Joanna Smith J said the following about the fourth limb:

“154.

There was some argument at trial, in part prompted by Asplin LJ's identification of only three questions for determination in Hughes v Pritchard, over whether the fourth limb of the Banks test is really a sub-set of the third limb, or whether it stands on its own and, if the latter, exactly what it is intended to cover.

155.

In my judgment, the fourth limb is plainly a separate element, as was illustrated by the decision in Sharp v Adam (a case involving a testator who had multiple sclerosis) where the Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's decision that only the fourth element of the Banks test was not satisfied owing to the fact that the testator's will was irrational. The Court of Appeal observed at [69] that, with reference to the fourth limb, the judge could have asked “whether [the testator's] human instincts and affections, or his moral sense, had been perverted by mental disease” (see also Kostic v Chaplin [2007] EWHC 2298 per Henderson J at [198]). The Court of Appeal went on to observe at [93] that the fourth limb is “concerned as much with mood as with cognition”. It is in this way that it is to be distinguished from the previous three limbs, which are purely concerned with cognition. Consideration of the fourth limb will often arise in the context of a case involving “insane delusion” (and Banks was one such case), but it is clear that it is not solely applicable to such a case; a “disorder of the mind” is a more general and diffuse concept admitting of a myriad of different forms of mental disease. This interpretation is evident in Gardiner v Tabet [2021] EWHC 563 (Ch) at [144], where, in dealing specifically with the fourth limb, Fancourt J said that “although [the testator] did suffer a disease of the mind it was not such as to poison his mind [against potential beneficiaries] or such as to prevent him from making a just and rational testamentary disposition of his estate”.

For present purposes, it is common ground between the parties that in order to succeed on the fourth limb of Banks v Goodfellow, the following must be established (and the burden of proof lies on the party seeking to challenge the validity of the will):

It is plain that at least as from Helen’s decision to have the deceased assessed for the purposes of his mental competence and most likely before that the two sides of this family have been at daggers drawn. Although there are occasions when they could get on without dispute – Joan being present with Georgina at a meeting with the deceased at Wootton Lawn Hospital on is an example – that is noteworthy as an exception. From the date of the assessment Christine and the four daughters have considered that Sheila and Joan have maliciously sought to control the deceased (and to prevent either their, or proper medical, intervention) for their own personal advantage. Sheila and Joan for their part have asserted that Christine, Helen and the other daughters have created a plan to have Michael sectioned for the purpose of taking control and benefit of his property. That was not a case that has been put to Helen, Christine or the other daughters by Mr. Ward-Prowse. The case that was put to them was the more nuanced and marginally less incendiary case that Michael was in fact hearing and perceiving the manifestations that he asserted, and that in consequence his perception of the acts of his daughters was understandable and hence not delusional. But Mr. Ward-Prowse did not put to Helen, Christine or the other daughters the assertion that they acted dishonestly in seeking to have Michael sectioned. However, I have no doubt that this was what Joan and in particular Sheila were asserting in their evidence.

I have asked myself what Michael was like as a man, before these difficulties arose. He appears from the evidence to have been a kindly man, slightly eccentric, very attached to his interests, cars, antiques and his farm. He was awkward socially. He wanted to keep the peace with his family and appears to have been slightly withdrawn with the women in his life. Having said that he appeared to be to a degree dependent on them and was able and willing to maintain amicable relationships despite (in the case of his relationship with Christine) divorce which appears to have become to a degree acrimonious and (in the case of Joan) changes in living arrangements.

Before these incidents he was very fond of his daughters and enjoyed their company. I accept their evidence and the evidence ofRichard Brown and Mark Webster to this effect and reject any suggestion to the contrary. I accept the evidence of his daughters, Christine and Mark Webster that his stated intention was that his estate would pass equally to his daughters on intestacy, and that corroborates the evidence of a close and loving relationship. I also find that his decision prior to 2014 not to have a will was a positive one, and not simply one that arose through indolence or an unwillingness to face his own mortality. When Christine tried to take him to arrange a will he left the solicitor’s office in part because he considered a will to be unnecessary. His daughters would inherit anyway. This was his intention until 2014.

By 2013 he was undoubtedly under stress. He had incurred a mortgage to pay out Christine’s entitlement from their divorce and was unable either to pay the accruing interest or discharge the capital. I accept Christine’s evidence that she was helping him with his indebtedness to a degree, but that was unlikely to continue in the future. Christine had registered a restriction over his property to secure repayment and kept a running log of her expenditure. He needed to sell his farm, and to purchase a property with the remaining equity. This was a most unwelcome change for him.

I turn next to consider the existence of delusions on Michael’s part. A delusion is the belief in the existence of a physical state of affairs or facts which is not in fact present and which belief cannot be changed by rational discussion or thought. What are the delusions in this case? There are a number of alleged delusions in this case, and they are linked. They are:

Putting to one side the issue as to whether these beliefs were delusional, it is broadly common ground between the parties that Michael by the time that he executed his will did have these beliefs. So I ask how this came about. As I have indicated above, the evidence concerning Michael’s relationship with his daughters and indeed Christine prior to 2013, at least once the divorce was out of the way was a good one. Michael had not made a will and positively intended not to do so. He intended his estate to pass to his daughters. There was no other obvious beneficiary. He was divorced from Christine although as I find on amicable terms, and she had a new relationship. Although his relationship with Sheila was civil it was not close. He might well have made some provision for Joan, but they had not married and their relationship was I consider more distant than that of a married couple, and she had her own tenancy of her own property.

Notwithstanding that the evidence of Charles Awre is that Michael’s attitude to him changed earlier than that, the starting point of the change in his relationships, certainly with his family members, is the putative sale of the farm. Michael put the farm on the market with valuers he trusted. There has been no suggestion that those valuers were part of any conspiracy. There was a meeting with the prospective purchaser, Mr. Townsend, Christine and the agent. According to Christine a bid was put in which was not acceptable, but Mr. Townsend then agreed to pay the minimum price that was acceptable to Michael, £540,000 which was acceptable to both. I do not know what the price at which the farm was marketed was, although I note that first on 11 February 2014 he is reported as telling Helen Etheridge, of the Nursing CRHTT, ‘Had his house valued at £550,000.00 although he believes the property is worth more than this, he is currently struggling to pay his mortgage’ and that the value had been offered; and secondly that the will questionnaire filled out in November 2014 stated ‘Farm is on the market for approx. £630,000 [?willing] to reduce to £600,000’. But whatever the marketing price back in 2013, as Mr Toombs the agent was present I have to assume that he had discussed beforehand with Michael the range at which the farm might be sold, and that the agreed figure fell within it.

It is the next morning when the sale falls through, and it is common ground that it falls through after a conversation between Michael and Joan. I think it likely that Michael had second thoughts on the sale. He was selling for less than the asking price and he never really wanted to sell. He has not arranged to move somewhere; I have no evidence that he had positively sought alternative possibilities. He may have thought it was an undervalue and probably told Joan so. Equally he may have simply decided that he did not wish to sell and found the contention that it was an undervalue an easy excuse. But either way, Joan would have agreed with him; it has not been suggested that Joan is a skilled or knowledgeable valuer of farmland, and the sale went off. When Christine saw Michael the next morning Michael, not wanting an argument, phoned Joan, who said what she had been told and believed.

That left Michael no closer to resolving his financial difficulties, and indeed further away from it. The pressure of his mortgage and running costs remained, and the only visible sale had gone. There is I note no suggestion that the farm was thereafter marketed in any serious way until (according to Joan) it was sold for £481,000 in April 2016, substantially less than had been offered over two years before.

Against this background, Michael started complaining about harassment and nuisance from, he believed the Awre family in general and Charles Awre in particular. Broadly, the nuisances that he complains of are noises against his windows; banging on the boarded up windows; the revving of engines and machinery nearby; and the shining of bright lights on to his land from the Awre farmland. Michael was convinced that the wrongdoers would damage the Farm and his vehicles. All of these events appear to take place at night, and start in late 2013, then intensifying in January 2014. This prompted Michael to stay up for long periods to catch the wrongdoers; drive around the area for the same purpose; take his air rifle and go outside; and threaten harm to the wrongdoers. I postulated above that Michael either believed (without cause) that the offered price was a significant undervalue, or that he came up with that contention to justify his reluctance and unwillingness to sell. On either basis I find that Michael convinced himself and did believe that the events he complained of were taking place. It is not conceivable that his daughters, who initially believed his complaints and contentions to the extent that they spoke ill of a person they had no basis to criticise, Charles Awre, would have been taken in by his contentions unless Michael himself believed them. That friends were willing to put themselves out to the degree that they did indicated that he was convincing to them as well. I stress that at this stage prior to February 2014 Michael did not believe that his daughters had cheated him. The rationale for the delusion was that this was the Awres, possibly in cahoots with Christine who wanted him to sell the Farm, making life difficult to drive him to sell, and doing so by overt physical acts.

When I consider what evidence there is that there was any degree of activity of this nature, or indeed any activity of this nature during the relevant period, the only evidence is that of Michael himself, and the accounts that he gives to his daughters, to Sheila, to Joan and to Robert, and to the doctors who treat him and to the police. The difficulty with relying on Michael’s reporting is that the reporting itself is not proof of the quality of the reporting. It begs the question as to whether genuine or delusional. As a delusion is a false manifestation that is convincing to the person suffering from the delusion, that the person alleged to be suffering from the delusion is himself convinced, or behaves in a manner that convinces others, is not of significant probative force. Ordinarily we do not assume that a person’s complaints may be deluded, on the contrary we assume that they are not. In this case however Michael was examined after his admission to Wotton House in February 2014, and his examination showed that he was and had been suffering from the effects of a stroke (see Dr. Ardagh-Walters’ discharge summary). Given that we know that Michael was suffering from a defect of the brain at that time and likely earlier, it necessarily devalues the effect of Michael’s reporting as evidence of truth.

Michael reported his concerns constantly over the period between early 2014 and December 2014 to the police. Whilst this was relatively low level crime, and Michael did not assert that he had been physically injured, the police did investigate. They found nothing to corroborate Michael’s concerns that he was the subject of the conspiracy of events he recounted, and nothing to indicate that the events he recounted in fact took place.

The Defendants rely upon the attitude of the daughters as expressed in their Facebook group chats in December 2013 or thereabouts. Those of his daughters who lived close by (all bar Caroline) would have interacted with him frequently, and would have been best place to spot if he was behaving oddly or in a deluded manner. It is evident that they accepted his account of nuisance as being fully accurate to the extent that they disparaged in graphic terms those who Michael blamed for this activity. I have no doubt that those Facebook entries represented what his daughters genuinely believed at the time. But I am also of the view that they did so because their father was convinced of the facts, because he was convincing when recounting them and because he was their father.

I have considered whether the challenge made by Helen to the Enduring Power of Attorney, which was withdrawn, affects the determination of Michael’s capacity. On the one hand, the issues as to capacity are not the same, and they apply to different periods in Michael’s life. On the other hand, the challenge whilst made by Helen was I have no doubt supported by her siblings; and it might be thought unlikely for Michael’s mental capacity, in general terms, to have improved between the execution of his will and his death. The argument would be that Helen acknowledged that Michael had capacity to grant an Enduring Power of Attorney in 2018; this was a concession made having brought a legal action asserting that Michael did not have that capacity; and in those circumstances it is evidence both that Michael had testamentary capacity, and that Helen (at least) exaggerated Michael’s lack of capacity.

I have commented above on Helen’s credibility and reliability. I do not consider that the events of this period are of great significance in determining whether Michael had testamentary capacity in December 2014, for a number of reasons. First, the test for testamentary capacity differs from the test for capacity for the execution of an enduring power of attorney – see the comments of Falk J (as she then was) in Re Clitheroe [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch) at [50] et seq. Secondly, these issues arose some years later. Whilst ordinarily capacity is thought of as a deteriorating function, that is not necessarily so. Thirdly, Michael’s circumstances were quite different as between 2014 and 2018. He was living in a different location and in a different household. New House Farm had been sold. He was no longer carrying on his business in any form.

I have considered whether there is any independent evidence which gives support to Michael’s perceptions. It is no doubt possible that lights seen in adjacent fields at night came from farmers or others lamping foxes. But it is important to remember that Michael had lived his life in the Forest. He would have been familiar with that and should have been able to distinguish it from the malevolent behaviour he perceived. It is also unlikely that it would have occurred with the frequency and the proximity as he complained of.

I have also considered whether the noise which Michael described – the revving of engines, could have been generated by tinnitus as Joan and Robert suggested. There is medical evidence that suggests that Michael may have suffered from tinnitus. But the evidence does not disclose perceptions that are consistent with tinnitus. The noises that he hears appear to be location specific (New House Farm), and thus evidence (if wrong and fixed) of a delusion. It is not I think a coincidence that his misperceptions, if that is what they are, are derived from different senses, both through sound and vision. I do not consider that Michael’s perceptions were caused by lamping, tinnitus or acute hearing.

I turn next to the evidence that contradicted Michael’s belief. The evidence here is not simply the general absence of evidence of nuisance, but also those specific instances when Michael heard activity but those persons with him did not. In this regard I refer to the evidence of his children, which I accept. This was not simply evidence of absence of perceived phenomena, but of Michael insisting that his perceptions could be heard and seen at that moment, and those who were present being unable to perceive any such thing. Indeed Robert gave evidence that he was unable to hear Michael’s perceptions. Joan also came close to admitting that this was the case. Together with the evidence of Richard Brown and Mark Webster (both of which were independent and compelling), Paul Jolley and the fact of police investigations into the complaints, it has been demonstrated beyond challenge that Michael’s belief and perceptions about being under threat and siege had no basis in reality.

Lastly, I also consider the inherent unlikelihood that such a conspiracy of evil to persuade Michael to have sold his property might have taken place. It is inherently unlikely, whether in the Forest or elsewhere. It is more than likely that Michael was perceiving some ordinary and commonplace events as directed and intense acts against him. It is also evident that Michael was simply perceiving events and activities that had no basis in fact or reality. In that respect his perceptions were, literally, all in his mind. I therefore conclude that by the end of 2013 Michael was of the firm belief that his neighbours, and in particular the Awre family and notably Christopher were causing a nuisance to his farm, and that belief was false. No one was causing such a nuisance. At best Michael was in some cases misconstruing innocent or commonplace sounds from the countryside. That nuisance did not exist.

Michael’s false belief was a delusion. It did not matter that those who were with him told him that there was no nuisance or there was no one there. The people who tried to reason with him were those who were closest to him and who he should have listened to. His daughters; his long term friends; and professional medical advisers all tried to persuade him that he was wrong. Michael could not understand that he was mistaken or that he could or might be mistaken.

As to Michael’s belief that Helen and with her the rest of the children were conspiring against him, it is apparent in January 2014 that Helen came to appreciate that the nuisance and activity that her father thought he was hearing and seeing was not in fact taking place, and that the consequences for Michael were becoming extreme. These were not innocent or trivial delusions. He had brandished an air rifle; spent time out of doors; had been up all night; was driving around threatening kill or to injure others; and was accusing his close blood relatives of a mercenary conspiracy against him. In those circumstances Helen’s concern for him, including seeking to have him examined by Dr Gibbs and a psychiatric consultant; having the matter referred to the crisis mental health team and indirectly causing armed police to attend in February 2014 were the concerns of a worried daughter. Because Michael was so deluded as to believe that the nuisance was genuine, he also wrongly believed that Helen’s concern was motivated by mercenary and evil motives. That too was a delusion. It was a fixed belief which was wrong and was incapable of being swayed by rational argument. Michael could not see that he might be wrong, as he in fact was, and that Helen and consequently his other daughters might be acting, or that they might think themselves to be acting, in his best interests.

Were these delusions operative at the time of the will? In my view they plainly were. Michael continued to hear the nuisance after the will was executed. He continued to believe that his daughters were part of a wrongful conspiracy to have him sectioned under the Mental Health Act. They were in fact trying to ensure that he received proper and appropriate care. Michael misunderstood their motives and was incapable of understanding or even contemplating that they might be acting in good faith towards him. The best evidence of the continuation of the delusions was the evidence of Ms Costley and Mr. Jolley at the time of the giving of instructions, and the terms of the subsequent letter of wishes written by Joan.

As to the contrary evidence of Ms Costley, the court will give the opinion of an experienced solicitor who takes instructions from a client considerable weight in assessing whether the client has testamentary capacity. Ms Costley was certainly experienced in personal probate matters. In Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch D) Joanna Smith J said:

“53.

…it has been said that, in a case of this sort, the most important evidence is that of the persons present at the time of the making of the will (see Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280 per Lewison LJ at [16]-[17]),…”

but that is not to ignore other evidence.

Obviously, where there may be a mental defect which is hidden from all apparent inspection or observation, such an opinion cannot assist. In these circumstances The ‘golden if tactless rule’ that an aged or infirm testator should be examined by his doctor to avoid challenge to the validity of the will is well known and of great practical use. The examination should be by the testator’s doctor if possible as he or she will be familiar with the testator; but if not it should be carried out by someone who has the testator’s medical records to examine. That did not happen in this case, although Ms Costley appears to have considered that Mr. Jolley’s presence would function as a substitute.

Ms Costley had not had any face to face contact with Michael prior to taking instructions on the drafting of the will. She met him in person twice only, and on the second occasion for a relatively brief period. Otherwise, communication with him appeared to be through a party who would benefit from the proposed will. She was aware that Michael was intending to disinherit or substantially disinherit his children who were his next of kin. The presence of Mr. Maddocks showed that Michael had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act ten months before. Although Michael’s age was not such that for that reason alone medical evidence to confirm testamentary capacity would have been thought necessary, given his medical history it was plainly a relevant matter. Adopting the ‘golden rule’ would have been prudent. That is I consider reinforced by her comment in correspondence with Joan in December 2014, that ‘[Joan] asked about the LPAs and I said I strongly believed that both should be drawn up, especially with regard to what has previously happened….. We talked about this for a short while and that Mike has not sent a letter to his doctor stopping any family member seeing his notes, just the 3 named people that he trusts’. Ms Costley knew that Michael had been sectioned; that his view as to the appropriateness of that sectioning had led to him seeking to cut off his next of kin from his medical records, his care and his property; and that it was appropriate for Michael to appoint other persons as his attorneys.

It does not appear that any advance liaison was carried out with Mr. Jolley if he was the person who was to give an opinion. Mr. Jolley was intending to visit Michael to assess his medication and not for the purpose of providing an assessment as to Michael’s testamentary capacity. Whether his presence was serendipitous, or whether Ms Costley (or Sheila or Joan) was aware of it and arranged the date accordingly was not explored in evidence.

As to Ms Costley’s evidence that Mr. Jolley opined that Michael had testamentary capacity, notwithstanding the fact that she noted this on the will questionnaire I accept Mr. Jolley’s evidence that he did not. I accept that had he been asked to give that opinion he would have carried out a formal test in other surroundings. Mr. Jolley is a cautious and experienced medical professional who would not have given such an opinion off the cuff. Had he been pressed to give an opinion, even if informally I have no doubt that Mr. Jolley would have refused. I conclude that Ms Costley unwisely took some informal comment of Mr. Jolley’s as an expression of such an opinion when it was not intended to be any such thing. I note also that she relied on Mr. Maddocks’ opinion. Mr. Maddocks has not been called as a witness, and his qualifications for giving such an opinion have not been explored.

I also find that the provision of a 25% bequest of residue to the daughters was prompted by Ms Costley. Michael would not at this time have wished to make any provision for his daughters; but Ms Costley would have felt that this was surprising and prompted him to do so.

Where an experienced solicitor takes instructions for a will the taking of instructions may amount to good evidence of testamentary capacity (see Hughes v Pritchard [2022] EWCA Civ 386 at [79] per Asplin LJ). But whether that is so must depend on a close factual examination of the circumstances in which instructions are taken, and the knowledge of the testator and his circumstances by the lawyer. My conclusion is that the procedure adopted by Ms Costley, and her evidence as to Michael’s testamentary capacity, must be of relatively little weight in support of the contention that Michael did have testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the will.

It is likely that Michael’s belief in the conspiracy against him was increased by Sheila and Joan’s expressed view that Michael was being mistreated, by being mis-diagnosed and by having inappropriate medicine prescribed for him. Michael would also have misinterpreted the removal of his dogs as part of the conspiracy, although this was carried out by Christine.

I also note that Michael appears to have considered that Emily took some of his silver. This appears to be of a part with his contention that Christine took his chattels and did not return them. As to the chattels I accept Christine’s evidence that she removed the chattels to safeguard them in Michael’s absence, and that they were returned the day after the contretemps at Christine’s house with Sheila. I do not accept that Christine was overbearing or intimidating. I consider it likely that Christine wanted the sale of New House Farm to go ahead and was very upset when Michael changed his mind, and Sheila has taken that justified umbrage as self-interested anger. I accept Christine’s evidence that the two ladies had an argument and Sheila drove off. As for Emily’s silver I accept her evidence that Michael asked her to sell some silver for him and she did. That he accused her of stealing it was I consider an example of his memory playing tricks on him.

As to Michael’s medication, I am not satisfied that Michael was taking his prescribed medication by the date of the execution of the will. Both Sheila and Joan had, at the best, reservations about the medicine that Michael was being prescribed and there is plentiful evidence that from time to time Michael did not take it. If a patient has a delusional condition and does not take the anti-psychotic medication that he is prescribed, the likely outcome is that his condition will deteriorate.

Were Michael’s delusions caused by a defect of the brain? The only evidence before me as to causation is Professor Fox’s analysis of the witness statements and Michael’s medical records. Those records and in particular the inter-actions with the doctors who treated Michael indicate that he had suffered some defect in his brain, likely a stroke. Both considered on its own, and in the light of Michael’s behaviour as recounted by the witnesses whose evidence I accept in this case I have no hesitation in concluding with him that the cause of these delusion was late onset schizophrenia caused by organic disorder of the brain. Moreover, in the absence of a defect of the brain it is difficult to explain such a complete volte-face towards his children.

I conclude that both at the time that he gave his instructions and executed his will, Michael was suffering from an insane delusion or disorder of the mind which arose from a mental disease that was fixed and incapable of contrary persuasion by all reasonable efforts and which had a causative effect on Michael’s testamentary dispositions, namely precluding him from properly considering the claims of his daughters. Indeed I find that had Michael not been suffering from such insane delusions he would have made no will at all, both because he wished to benefit all of his daughters equally and because he disliked the idea of making a will. I also find that Michael was not able to understand or give effect to the claims to which he ought to give effect, again being the claims of his daughters. Therefore Michael’s purported will is void for want of testamentary capacity.

I turn next to the plea of fraudulent calumny. The modern learning on the topic derives from the judgment of Lewison J (as he then was) in Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch). The law was summarised by Mr. Jonathan Klein sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court in Kunicki v Hayward [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch) at [122] as follows:

“It seems to me that, to succeed on this plea, [the challenger] must satisfy the following to a sufficient degree; namely, (i) that [the representor] made a false representation (ii) to [the testator] (iii) about [the disappointed beneficiary] (iv) for the purpose of inducing [the testator] to alter his testamentary dispositions and (v) that [the representor] made such a representation knowing it to be untrue or being reckless as to its truth and (vi) that the 2013 Will was made only because of the fraudulent calumny.”

Although the burden of proving each of these elements lies on the claimants, and the standard of proof is to the civil standard of proof, it was accepted by Mr. Knight on behalf of the claimants that in assessing whether that proof has been achieved, the Court will have regard to the inherent unlikelihood of a party committing what would be a serious and criminal act – see Kunickisupra. at [123]; Re Dellow’s Will Trusts [1964] 1 WLR 451 per Ungoed-Thomas J.

The way in which this was pleaded as regards Sheila is that she poisoned Michael’s mind against the daughters. This is pleaded as eleven specific statements which save for one are admitted by the Defendants. Those are:

The Defence admits those statements, save for the phone call at (k), but denies that Sheila either believed they were false or was reckless as to their truth or falsity. In evidence, to a degree Sheila resiled from the admission that she said that Michael did not need to take his medication. She said that she did not believe that medication was always necessary; that it was over-prescribed; and that she would enquire of doctors and medical professionals as to whether Michael’s prescribed medication was appropriate. Having considered the evidence both oral and significantly from the medical records, I find that she did tell the deceased that he need not take his medication.

As against Joan, the following allegations are made:

Joan denied these allegations. She averred that the reference to Helen being ‘evil’ or being ‘Hel by name and hell by nature’ came from Michael, not from herself. Again, she maintained that what she said to Michael was what she genuinely believed to be true.

The way in which it was put by Mr. Knight in closing was that Joan had sought to ostracise Michael from his daughters, for the purpose of persuading him to execute a will. He referred to Dr Gibbs’ letter 12 March 2014 referring to her request that he should provide evidence of Michael’s competency, which Mr Knight asserted was sought as part of Joan’s intention to procure the execution by Michael of a new will. Joan knew that Helen was not the cause of the sectioning but asserted that she was. Sheila had blatantly sought to misrepresent Helen’s part in the medical intervention. He contended that Sheila was at the very least reckless as to the falsity of the various misrepresentations she was making.

Mr. Ward-Prowse contended that Joan had not made representations to Michael about Helen taking his diazepam or that Michael was mad for working on Helen’s car and that Joan and Sheila believed that Helen was in fact seeking to lock Michael up.

In essence, the claimants’ case is that Sheila and/or Joan knew that Michael was delusional and that the daughters, and in particular Helen were seeking to do their best for him, or alternatively they were reckless as to whether their statements to the contrary were false. By encouraging Michael to believe that they, and in particular Helen were ‘evil’, they were slandering them. They also it is said acted in order to ensure that they would receive the benefit of Michael’s estate.

As I have noted, the factual statements alleged to have been made by Sheila are admitted. As far as the factual allegations of calumny made against Joan are concerned, I find the following proven:

I next consider the falsity of the statements made. Some of these statements are statements of opinion, not fact. Although a statement of opinion may contain a statement of fact, typically that the maker believes the opinion stated, the case was not put in that way by Mr. Knight. The relevance of these statements to the claim of fraudulent calumny in issue relates to Michael’s perception of his daughters. So, for example, where it is said that Sheila’s fraudulent calumny included the statement that she told Michael that ‘there was nothing wrong with him contrary to what the Claimants were telling him’ the gist of the calumny is that the daughters were lying to Michael, and that they did not believe that he was ill. Likewise as to their actions, they were mercenary and not in Michael’s best interests. Although my findings set out above make clear where the truth lies in these matters, for completeness my findings are as follows:

As to Sheila’s statements:

As to Joan’s statements,

As far as the purpose or motivation of these statements are concerned, I conclude that both Sheila and Joan intended to induce Michael to make a will that was less favourable to his children. Although I consider it likely that Sheila was the prime mover in causing Michael to make his will, it is evident that Joan was an associate in this regard. Ms. Costley’s evidence as to the manner in which Michael came to Gwyn James for a will was not clear. The File Opening Sheet disclosed that the work source was ‘Introduction’. By whom is not specified. It also bears the file opened date as 7 November 2014 which would appear to be incorrect as the interview at New House Farm took place on 4 November 2014. The file opening sheet gave Joan’s address (on a ‘c/o’ basis) as the correspondence address for Michael, and that was also noted on the front of the will questionnaire.

Sheila and Joan’s presence on 4 November 2014 was not coincidental. They were there to be present at the formulation of the will. They were in the room whilst Michael was discussing the terms with Ms Costley. The will questionnaire notes ‘others present’ as sister and friend. I note that it was Joan who chased Ms. Costley for the production of the draft will on 24 November 2014, and Joan who discussed the draft will by telephone in early December 2014.

Sheila was certainly driven by the desire to divert Michael’s estate from his daughters. I do not have to make a finding as to whether her intention was to make a pecuniary benefit for herself and her family. In the absence of his daughters, Sheila was Michael’s closest relative, and she saw the potential benefit of herself and her family as fully justified. The statements were in my view made for the purpose of inducing Michael to make a will that disinherited his daughters. I have no doubt that Joan and (in particular) Sheila considered that the Claimants did not deserve to inherit, and that part of purpose of their making of these statements to Michael was to induce him to deal with his assets in a manner that prevented his children from benefiting from them. The fact that they were given 25% of the residue was as I have found prompted in discussion by Ms Costley, and was provided by Michael to try to persuade the daughters not to challenge the will. In that respect the wording on the will questionnaire ‘conditional on no claim being made’ is pertinent.

The next issue is whether the statements were made fraudulently. A statement is made fraudulently if a person knows it to be false, or is reckless as to whether its falsity. ‘Reckless’ in this context means that the maker of the statement is careless as to whether it is true or false, or indifferent as to whether the statement is true or not – see Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573 at 585d-7h per Jacob J (as he then was). That is not the same thing as being careless in making the statement. Where a party genuinely believes that which they say is true, they cannot be fraudulent, however unreasonable or untethered from reality their statement is from the truth. Having considered the evidence, and noting that the inherent likelihood of fraud, I have on balance come to the view that they both believed in 2014 that Michael was being harassed, and also believed that Helen (and the other daughters) were trying to have Michael sectioned for their own financial gain. Joan I think may have wavered in her belief from time to time but would revert to it when with Michael. Sheila was driven by her dislike of Christine. That they thought this may say more about their own credulousness and cynicism than anything else, or their willingness to think ill of the daughters arising from the disagreement between Sheila and Christine; or disagreements over Sheila’s previous dealings with Jean; or a poor relationship between the daughters and Joan. But it does not matter why. It follows that this head of challenge fails.

Dealing lastly with the question of causation, I have considered whether the will would have been made in any event given the nature of Michael’s delusions against his daughters. It might be thought that he would not have wanted the ‘heir hunters’ to have found his beneficiaries on intestacy. I consider that it is likely that but for the intervention of Sheila and Joan Michael would not in fact have made a will at all. He was averse to doing so however much it was suggested to him that it was in his best interests, as happened when Christine tried to get him to make a will. He only made a will when Joan arranged it and brought the solicitor to him to take instructions and Sheila took him to Gwyn James to execute it. Their constant refrain that the daughters were being malicious and grasping and was in my view causative both as to the fact that the will was executed and the terms in which it was executed.

I therefore find against the purported will and declare that Michael died intestate.

As this judgment is being handed down in the absence of the parties, I will adjourn the further hearing of this matter to a date to be fixed, to deal with consequential matters, and I will also adjourn any application for permission to appeal and any application for an extension of time for appealing to the Court of Appeal. If the parties can agree a consequential order I would be grateful if this could be lodged with the court, but if not they will file submissions on their points of disagreement (not extending beyond 5 pages of A4) within 14 days, and the adjourned hearing will be listed for a further 1 hour hearing by Teams on the first available date after 28 days.

Lastly, this case was heard at the end of August 2025. Due to my own personal circumstances it has taken me longer for it to be produced than I would have expected or the parties would have hoped. I apologise to all involved for the delay in production.