Making sudden and significant changes to Wills

15 Sep 2025

Karim v Steele

The recent case in Karim v Steele & Anor has resulted in a shift in how the Court considers undue influence where a Will’s validity is challenged. This article looks at the importance of advising clients around making sudden and significant changes to Wills.

Background

Sheila Carter passed away at age 87, leaving no partner, children, or close family. She was dependent on others for her needs due to psychological issues including agoraphobia and anxiety, as well as chronic health issues.

From 2006, Sheila had a live-in carer, Ms Karim. They were very good friends and highly dependent on each other. Ms Karim had contributed financially to the property and provided loans to Sheila who was cash poor to improve her quality of life. Ms Karim had also paid for property improvements with the expectation that she would eventually inherit the house based on representations made by Sheila.

In 2012, Sheila executed a Will to that effect, leaving her entire estate to Ms Karim except for a jewellery gift to another party. This Will was executed by solicitors at Romaine Coleman.

The 2015 Will

Sheila executed a further Will in 2015 drafted by Will writers. She left her entire estate to Mr Quinn, who she met in hospital during a stay in 2013 but who then became a frequent visitor to Sheila. Mr Quinn visited Sheila daily, telling her that he cared for her, and assisted with care, which was inappropriate given Ms Karim’s existing caregiving. Sheila had been misled to believe that she and Mr Quinn were in a relationship – she had told her friend, Ms Payne, that her and Mr Quinn were in love and intended to marry, but Mr Quinn already had a wife.

Challenging the Will

Ms Karim, who had previously been the primary beneficiary of Sheila’s estate, challenged the Will on 4 grounds:

Lack of Testamentary Capacity
Knowledge and Approval of the Will’s content
Undue Influence; and
Fraudulent Calumny (Misrepresentation).

The most compelling arguments were found in undue influence and fraudulent calumny.

The Court found strong indications that, due to Sheila’s frailty and her dependence on others, she had been influenced into altering her Will by Mr Quinn.

Other parties to the 2012 Will were removed without reason, because Mr Quinn had isolated Sheila from Ms Karim and her friends, and she became entirely dependent on him. In fact, it was Mr Quinn who first contacted the Will writers to initiate changing the Will. Instructions were taken via telephone with Mr Quinn present, and no attempt was made to ascertain if they reflected Sheila’s wishes.

The Court also found that false statements had been made by Mr Quinn to Sheila in an attempt to poison her mind against Ms Karim.

Outcome and Decision

The Will was declared invalid, and the Grant of Probate was revoked, resulting in the 2012 Will taking effect.

Implications and Practical Lessons for Practitioners

Even where a Will appears valid, Courts will intervene where there is evidence of undue influence. For practitioners, this case highlights the importance of vigilance when advising vulnerable clients and recording detailed client instructions.

Where clients are isolated and wish to make sudden changes that are vastly different to previous Wills, this should prompt heightened scrutiny. If it feels necessary, advise clients that making sudden and rushed Wills could provoke reactions from those close to them. Taking sufficient information from clients and ascertaining whether they have received suitable independent advice is recommended.

Where capacity is a question, solicitors can mitigate risk by advising clients to undertake a capacity assessment, which can assist in defending questions about capacity.

By adopting a proactive response, practitioners can reduce the risk of litigation and ensure they are protecting their clients’ wishes.