Poisoned affections: what Ginger v Mickleburgh cost a will

Your daughters are evil, and they are trying to steal your home. Imagine being told that, over and over, at the lowest point of your life. Michael Gwilliam was told it by the two people still closest to him. He believed it. Then he made his first ever will, and cut his four daughters down to a quarter of his estate, on condition that they never questioned it [34].

Read the transcript

Your kids are evil and they're stealing from you. Imagine being told that when you're at your lowest ebb. Michael Gwilliam was 79 when he died in February 2022. He left behind four daughters, Helen, Georgina, Emily and Caroline, and a will that barely recognised them. The trouble began in early 2014. Michael became convinced his neighbours were conspiring to force him from his home. He brandished an air rifle and was detained under the Mental Health Act. The doctors diagnosed persistent delusional disorder. After discharge, Michael's beliefs shifted. Now he believed his daughters had orchestrated his sectioning to steal his property. His sister Sheila and his companion Joan reinforced these ideas, telling him his daughters were evil. That November, Michael made his first ever will. His daughters would share just 25 per cent, and only if they didn't challenge it. Joan and Sheila took the lion's share. When Michael died, his daughters fought back. They argued their father lacked testamentary capacity, and that his mind had been poisoned by illness and by family. The law. This case turned on two legal doctrines: testamentary capacity and fraudulent calumny. On capacity, the Banks v Goodfellow test requires a testator to understand what their will is, know their assets, appreciate who might have claims on their estate, and have no disorder of the mind that might poison their affections. Michael understood the mechanics, but the court held that's not enough. If a testator's reasons for their gifts are driven by delusions, capacity fails. Michael excluded his daughters because he falsely believed they conspired against him. That belief was symptomatic of his psychiatric disorder and not grounded in reality. Fraudulent calumny. The court found Joan and Sheila had actively reinforced Michael’s delusions, but it fell short of fraudulent calumny. They told him his daughters were evil and wanted his money. Joan made false allegations to Helen’s university. The judge found these were lies but did not meet the threshold for fraud. The capacity challenge succeeded. The will fell, and intestacy applied. The lesson. In January 2026 the High Court set aside this will because the evidence of Mr Gwilliam's capacity was inadequate. The solicitor took instructions and ticked a capacity checklist, noting that a visiting mental health nurse believed Michael had capacity. But that nurse was never formally asked to assess him. The judge found this wholly insufficient. The checklist recorded what Michael wanted, but nobody probed why, and his reasons were delusional. The will was declared invalid. Michael died intestate. His daughters inherited. The lesson is clear. Where there's any history of mental illness, or unusual hostility towards natural beneficiaries, a tick box checklist won't protect the will. Get the best evidence you can of the client's capacity: full written or, ideally, video evidence. If there are any doubts, get a full testamentary capacity assessment, and if possible follow the golden rule.

Eleven years later the High Court decided he had never been capable of making that will at all. The case is Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch), decided by HHJ Leslie Blohm KC and handed down on 23 January 2026. The will was declared void and Michael died intestate [274]. His daughters inherited after all.

What makes the case worth reading is not the result. It is how close the will came to standing up, and how ordinary the failures were that brought it down.

1. Background

Michael Gwilliam was born in February 1942 in the Forest of Dean [7]. He dealt in antiques, married Christine in 1972, and had four daughters between 1973 and 1979: Caroline, Helen, Emily and Georgina [7]. He and Christine bought New House Farm at Awre, a five bedroomed farmhouse with outbuildings, a barn and three fields [9]. They divorced in 1994, and in 2007 Michael raised a mortgage to buy out her share [12]. In about 1995 he met Joan Brooks, who moved into the farm and kept a bedroom there even after she rented her own place in 2011 [15].

Until 2013 this was an unremarkable family. The judge put it plainly: Until the events of 2013 the relationship between Michael and his daughters and indeed his ex-wife appears to have been harmonious [14].

The sale that did not happen

By 2013 Michael could not afford to keep the farm and pay the mortgage interest, so he put it on the market [16]. A Mr Trenchard offered £540,000. Michael accepted, with Christine present and telling him it was a good deal [18]. The next day he changed his mind. Joan had told him on the telephone that the offer was chicken feed, and Christine heard her say it [18]. Michael had also decided that Trenchard was a front for the Awre family, the large local landowning family who farmed next door [18].

From late 2013 he began to hear things. Noises outside the house. Tapping on his windows and door. Bright lights shone through his boundary hedges. He believed the Awres were doing it to frighten him into selling [19]. He spent two consecutive nights outside his own house with a torch, warding them off [26].

The sectioning

On 7 February 2014 Helen rang his GP [21]. A home visit by the crisis team followed on 11 February, with Helen there. Michael was angry, refused them entry at first, and at one point picked up an air rifle and pointed it at his visitors [22]. He was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and taken to Wootton Lawn [23]. On 20 February he was diagnosed with organic persistent delusional disorder caused by cerebro-vascular disease [212]. He was discharged on 27 February [26].

That fortnight decided everything that followed. While Michael was detained, Christine went to the farm and removed chattels. She said she took them for safe keeping, and that they were jointly owned and never divided after the divorce [24]. The defendants called it theft [25].

When Michael came out, his delusion had found a new target. He no longer only believed the neighbours were persecuting him. He now believed his daughters had engineered his sectioning so that they could take his property [226]. His sister Sheila and Joan told him he was right.

Chronology

The will

Michael had never made a will before, and disliked the idea [273]. On 4 November 2014 Ms Costley of Gwyn James took his instructions at the farm. Sheila and Joan were in the room while he discussed the terms, and the questionnaire records others present as sister and friend [270].

The will he signed on 3 December 2014 left [38]:

• £31,000 to Joan, in recognition of money she had made available to him and for her care and support.
• £200 to Cancer Research UK.
• His chattels to his trustees beneficially.
• The residue in shares: 25% to Joan, 25% to Sheila, 15% to Sheila’s son Robert, 5% each to his nephews Simon and William, and 25% divided between his four daughters.

It also contained a forfeiture clause aimed at any beneficiary who challenged the will or brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 [38]. The will questionnaire had recorded the gift to the daughters as conditional on no claim being made [34]. Asked why he had cut them down, the questionnaire records: Have gifted this way to my daughters due to their treatment in recent years [34].

2. The law

Testamentary capacity

The judge took the test from Fancourt J’s summary in Goss-Custard v Templeman [2020] EWHC 632 (Ch). That summary sets out Banks v Goodfellow as the Court of Appeal sub-paragraphed it in Sharp v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449. A testator must [218]:

"[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."

Capacity is about the ability to understand, not about memory. Quoting Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280, capacity depends on the potential to understand. It is not to be equated with a test of memory [218].

This case turned entirely on limb [d], the fourth limb. Two points about it matter.

First, it is a separate requirement, not a footnote to the third. The judge adopted Joanna Smith J’s analysis in Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch). The first three limbs are purely concerned with cognition. The fourth is concerned as much with mood as with cognition [220]. So a testator can pass every cognitive test and still fail.

Second, the old test for whether a belief is delusional is a test of comprehensibility. From Re Broughton (1873) LR 3 P&D 64 [219]:

"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."

The parties agreed four things had to be shown, with the burden on the person challenging the will [221]:

• An insane delusion or disorder of the mind.
• Arising from a mental disease.
• Fixed and incapable of contrary persuasion by all reasonable efforts.
• Having a causative effect on the testamentary dispositions.

There is a sting in the fourth. Once insane delusions are established, the burden lies on the party propounding the will to show that the testator’s mind was not in fact affected by the delusion when the will was created [221]. Prove the delusion and the burden flips.

Fraudulent calumny

The second challenge was fraudulent calumny, which is poisoning a testator’s mind against someone by lying about them. The modern law comes from Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch). The judge used the six part summary from Kunicki v Hayward [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch) at [122] [256]. The challenger must show:

• A false representation.
• Made to the testator.
• About a disappointed beneficiary.
• For the purpose of inducing a change to the will.
• Made knowing it was untrue, or reckless as to its truth.
• And the will was made only because of it.

Two features make this hard to prove. The court weighs the inherent unlikelihood of a party committing what would be a serious and criminal act [257]. And recklessness has a narrow meaning. A person is reckless if careless or indifferent as to whether the statement is true, which is not the same as being careless in making it. As the judge put it, 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 [272].

3. Applying the law to the facts

The capacity challenge succeeded

The judge identified four linked delusions, which he summarised as a belief that the daughters were seeking to act selfishly in their own financial interests at the expense of their father [226].

They were fixed. Everyone who might have reached him tried and failed [241]:

"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."

They were operative when he made the will. He was still hearing the nuisance afterwards, and still believed his daughters had conspired to have him sectioned when in fact they were trying to get him care [243]. He was incapable of understanding or even contemplating that they might be acting in good faith towards him [243].

They had a medical cause. On the expert evidence the judge found the cause was late onset schizophrenia, arising from an organic disorder of the brain and probably a stroke [254]. He added that in the absence of a defect of the brain it is difficult to explain such a complete volte-face towards his children [254]. He also found Michael was probably not taking his anti-psychotic medication by the date of the will [253].

So the will was void [255]. Note what else the judge said in the same paragraph. Had Michael not been deluded he would have made no will at all. He wanted to benefit all his daughters equally, and he disliked the idea of making a will. The third limb failed too: he could not appreciate his daughters’ claims.

The fraudulent calumny plea failed

This is the part the headlines miss. The judge found almost every ingredient present.

The statements were made. Sheila’s were largely admitted [258], and he found Joan had told Michael that Helen was evil, that she wanted his property, that the daughters were bad news, and that Helen wanted all his money [265].

They were false. Helen did not want his property, and the daughters were acting in what they perceived to be Michael’s best interests. That is the opposite of being evil, mercenary or bad news [268]. There was no plot to have him sectioned [267].

The purpose was there. Both women intended to induce Michael to make a will that was less favourable to his children [269], and Sheila was certainly driven by the desire to divert Michael’s estate from his daughters [271].

Causation was there. But for their intervention Michael would probably have made no will at all. Joan arranged the solicitor and brought her to him; Sheila drove him to the office to execute it [273].

The plea still failed, on the single element of fraud. The judge concluded that both women genuinely believed Michael was being harassed, and genuinely believed the daughters were trying to have him sectioned for their own financial gain [272]. That belief may say more about their own credulousness and cynicism than anything else, but a genuine belief cannot be fraudulent. His conclusion was one sentence: It follows that this head of challenge fails [272].

The lesson for anyone thinking of running this plea is that being wrong is not enough, and neither is having a motive. You must prove dishonesty, against a court that starts from the assumption that people do not usually commit fraud.

4. What could have been done differently

The will was not defeated by anything exotic. It was defeated by a capacity check that looked like a capacity check without being one.

The golden rule was not followed

The judge described the golden if tactless rule, that an aged or infirm testator should be examined by a doctor, as well known and of great practical use. The examination should be by the testator’s own doctor if possible, and if not by someone with access to the medical records. That did not happen in this case [245]. Given a sectioning ten months earlier and a plan to disinherit the natural beneficiaries, Adopting the ’golden rule’ would have been prudent [246].

A nurse who was never asked

Ms Costley recorded on the will questionnaire that Mr Jolley, the community mental health nurse, thought Michael had testamentary capacity. The judge accepted Mr Jolley’s evidence that he did not give any such opinion [248]. Mr Jolley was visiting to review medication, not to assess capacity, and there had been no advance liaison with him at all [247]. Had he been asked, he would have carried out a formal test elsewhere, and if pressed for an off the cuff view he would have refused [248]. The judge’s verdict was 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 [248].

The warning signs were all on the file

Ms Costley had never met Michael before taking instructions, met him twice in total, and the second time only briefly. Most communication ran through Joan, who stood to benefit under the will. She knew he was substantially disinheriting his children. She knew he had been sectioned ten months earlier [246]. Any one of those is a reason to slow down.

Nobody asked why

This is the heart of it. The questionnaire captured what Michael wanted. It recorded his reason in nine words: Have gifted this way to my daughters due to their treatment in recent years [34]. Nobody tested that reason. Had anyone done so they would have found a fixed, false belief that his daughters had conspired to lock him up to steal his farm.

There is a further detail that should trouble any will drafter. The 25% left to the daughters was not Michael’s idea. The judge found Ms Costley prompted it, because leaving them nothing would have looked surprising [249]. The very feature that made the will look reasonable on its face had been supplied by the solicitor.

Why a good solicitor’s file was not enough

An experienced solicitor taking instructions is usually powerful evidence of capacity. Hughes v Pritchard [2022] EWCA Civ 386 at [79] says so, and the judge cited it [250]. But that weight 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. Here the procedure was such that her evidence was of relatively little weight [250].

The practical lesson is the one Sharp v Adam already taught. In that case the solicitor did everything the golden rule required and the will still failed on the fourth limb, because the testator’s reasons were the problem, not his understanding. A tick box is not evidence.

Two things should trigger real caution: any history of mental illness, and any unexplained hostility towards the people who would normally inherit. Where either is present, gather proper evidence while the testator can still give it. That means a full attendance note. It means an assessment by someone actually instructed to carry one out. Best of all, it means a recording of the testator explaining the decision in their own words. Evidence made at the time is the only kind that outlives the person who made it.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. If you are worried about whether a will could be challenged, please get in touch for advice on your own situation.

Sources

• Ginger & Ors v Mickleburgh & Ors [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch) on BAILII
• Ginger & Ors v Mickleburgh & Ors [2026] EWHC 100 (Ch) on Find Case Law
• Goss-Custard & Anor v Templeman & Ors [2020] EWHC 632 (Ch) on Find Case Law
• Leonard & Ors v Leonard & Ors [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) on Find Case Law
• Sharp & Anor v Adam & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 449 on Find Case Law
• Simon v Byford & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 280 on Find Case Law
• Hughes v Pritchard & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 386 on Find Case Law
• Kunicki & Anor v Hayward [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch) on Find Case Law
• Edwards v Edwards & Ors [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch) on BAILII
• Mental Health Act 1983 on legislation.gov.uk
• Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 on legislation.gov.uk