A legal challenge brought by three family members over the will of their mother has been lost.
Brought on the grounds of undue influence and lack of mental capacity, the will was disputed by three of Mrs Ball’s children, who had reported their father to the police for indecent assault.
James Ball admitted some of these charges following a prosecution, which led to a suspended sentence in prison. There were a number of other allegations which were either not prosecuted, unproven or withdrawn.
The children’s decision to go to the police was strongly disapproved of by the mother. In the following year, she created a will which explicitly excluded them, dividing her estate among the remaining eight children as well as a grandson.
Following the death of Mrs Ball, the three excluded children decided to bring a claim against her estate, despite it being only worth around £157,000. The was brought on the grounds of lack of capacity, as they claimed that Mr Ball had told their mother he was innocent of any assault allegations. In light of this, the children stated that her mental state was impaired at the time of the will being drafted. Alongside this was a claim of undue influence, with the view that the children had been disinherited in response to the accusations against Mr Ball.
A claim under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975 was also brought for reasonable provision.
However, Matthews HHJ rejected all of these claims.
In regard to the lack of capacity, he highlighted evidence that indicated that Mr Ball had actually confessed to some of the allegations, and had admitted these to his wife. As this indicated that she had not been misled, this claim was disposed of.
He also found that despite the fact others did not necessarily like the choices Mrs Ball had made in her will, this did not mean she had been the subject of undue influence.
Matthews acknowledged that some may have criticised her decision in light of the allegations, but went on to state that distribution of her estate was ultimately her decision.
The claim for reasonable provision brought by the claimants was also dismissed.
