The High Court rejected a challenge to Nicholas Roche’s will, finding it had been executed in accordance with the Succession Act 1965 and was not procured by duress or undue influence. The court also said the allegation that Roche lacked testamentary capacity had no foundation in the evidence heard.
The action was brought by Roche’s sister, Anastasia Elliot, and her son, David Elliot, who acted for her under a power of attorney. They sought to prevent probate of a will said to have been executed in February 2003. Their pleaded grounds included improper execution, lack of capacity and undue influence by Robert Stamp, the principal beneficiary and sole executor, and his mother, Bridie Stamp, who was Roche’s sister.
The defendants denied the allegations, maintaining that Roche made the will freely, with capacity and with legal assistance. A previous motion by the defendants to strike out the action was refused by consent order in June 2006, with costs reserved. The issues set for trial were due execution, testamentary capacity and whether the will had been procured by duress or influence.
The court heard that Robert Stamp contacted the legal executive who prepared the will and arranged a visit to Roche, who was staying at his sister’s home. The legal executive said he took instructions from Roche alone, read the will to him and then discussed a tax issue with Stamp at Roche’s request. The will was witnessed by the legal executive and his wife. The court accepted that Stamp played a significant role in bringing the will about and knew of his benefit before it was signed, but found that his involvement was at Roche’s behest.
The judge noted discrepancies between the recorded instructions and the will, including how debts and funeral expenses were to be addressed, but concluded they did not invalidate it. He found that Roche knew and approved the will’s contents and that it met the statutory requirements.
The plaintiffs’ capacity claim was not pursued at trial. The court nevertheless said the evidence did not support it, relying on testimony about Roche’s understanding of his affairs and the evidence of those present when the will was read and signed.
On undue influence, the court held that the plaintiffs had not discharged their burden of proof. It found no evidence of coercion, dominion or control, and said the circumstances pleaded—including Stamp’s involvement and his benefit under the will—did not establish undue influence. The court therefore found that the will was not procured by duress or influence by either defendant.