Willans partner Claire Cox explains the significance of Ginger v Mickleburgh, a long-running case that clarifies the law on testamentary capacity and mental illness, and provides important guidance for families and legal practitioners.
In Ginger v Mickleburgh, the High Court considered a long‑running family dispute involving the will of Michael Gwilliam of the Forest of Dean, who died in February 2022. The case involved extensive medical evidence, 13 witness testimonies, and expert psychiatric opinion.
Willans acted for Mr Gwilliam’s four daughters, who challenged their father’s 2014 will on the basis that he lacked capacity at that time. This was due to his late onset schizophrenia, which was causing him to suffer from delusions, including his belief that his daughters were conspiring against him. It was further alleged that the will was brought about by the fraudulent calumny of the defendants (two of whom were Michael’s sister and ex partner).
Mr Gwilliam had previously refused to prepare a will and specifically told his daughters that he wanted to be intestate, as his estate would pass to them. In 2014, he began suffering from paranoid thoughts that people were tapping on his windows and shining lights into his property. He made complaints to the police regarding what he perceived to be harassment and stayed up all night patrolling his farm from to protect it from what he considered to be potential intruders.
In spring 2014, Mr Gwilliam was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. By November 2014 he had prepared a will, leaving his daughters only a 25% share of his estate, with the remainder left to his sister, ex-girlfriend and nephews (the defendants).
Mr Gwilliam’s daughters argued the will was invalid as he was suffering from delusions at that time. However, the defendants defended the claim on the basis that Mr Gwilliam was not delusional but was in fact being harassed. They claimed that he did have capacity to prepare a will.
The outcome
In the final judgment, the judge declared that the disputed will was invalid on the grounds that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time it was made. It was found that Mr Gwilliam was suffering from insane delusions, or a disorder of the mind arising from schizophrenia, which affected his will by preventing him from properly considering his daughters’ claims, with whom he had previously been close.
Mr Gwilliam’s delusions led him to wrongly believe that his four daughters were stealing from him and tried to have him sectioned for their own financial gain – none of which the court found to be true. As a result, it was ruled that the will was invalid and Mr Gwilliam died intestate, entitling his daughters to inherit his estate.
The court did not accept the claim of fraudulent calumny, an allegation that the defendants poisoned Mr Gwilliam’s mind against his daughters with statements they knew to be false (or were reckless as to their truth), deliberately inducing him to make a will.
While the court accepted that many of the factual allegations were proven, and the defendants intended to induce Michael to make a will that was less favourable to his daughters, HHJ Blohm QC found that both defendants believed the daughters were trying to have Mr Gwilliam sectioned for their own financial gain – therefore this ground failed.
What does this mean?
The case is notable as the will was prepared by an experienced paralegal who gave evidence that she considered that Mr Gwiliam did have capacity, and who stated that his mental health nurse, who was present at the time that the will was made, had indicated as such. The nurse denied this in evidence, and the court accepted that he had not performed an assessment of capacity.
Giving judgment, it was recognised that the court will give the opinion of an experienced solicitor “considerable weight” but “that is not to ignore other evidence”.
It was recognised that a report from a medical professional on capacity should have been obtained (the golden rule), particularly given that the paralegal was on notice of the sectioning. Consequently, the judge gave “little weight” to the evidence of the will writer.
Willans LLP acted for the four daughters of the deceased throughout the proceedings, guiding them through what was a complex and emotionally charged dispute which had been ongoing for over four years.
This was a harrowing case for our clients, but we are pleased that the court recognised the impact of Michael’s serious mental illness on testamentary decision‑making. The judgment reinforces the importance of the good practice of solicitors obtaining contemporaneous capacity reports where there are any questions as to testamentary capacity.
The decision has wider importance for solicitors, families and professionals involved in supporting older or vulnerable individuals, reinforcing the importance of robust safeguards when preparing wills.
Helen Ginger & Ors v Robert Mickleburgh & Ors [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch)
About the author
Claire Cox is a partner in Willans’ highly rated litigation and dispute resolution team. With over 15 years’ experience, she is recognised as a specialist in inheritance and trusts disputes, as well as contentious probate. Helping clients with claims against estates and the contesting of wills, she often assists on disputes between executors or trustees, estate administration issues, breaches of trust and claims regarding will validity. She is an expert in dealing with contentious trusts outside of inheritance disputes, including TOLATA claims. Claire is an associate member of ACTAPS.
