In Kunicki v Hayward [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch) the High Court rejected a claim of fraudulent calumny in a probate claim. The deceased had capacity when he signed his will. He both knew and approved it’s contents. The court so held in this case where it was alleged that there was a contract to share the deceased’s estate.
The deceased’s son challenged the validity of the will on the basis of the testator, his father, lacked testamentary capacity and did not know nor approve the contents of his will. The son was given permission to challenge the validity of the will on the ground that it was a result of ‘fraudulent calumny’ on the part of his sister. He argued that there was a binding contractual agreement with his sister to share their father’s estate equally no matter what their father might leave to either of them.
The basis of the fraudulent calumny is that the person alleged to have been poisoning the testator’s mind must either know that the aspersions are false or not care whether they are true or false. The court rejected the claim of fraudulent calumny on the facts of the case as the test was not satisfied.
Regarding the agreement the court found that is was too uncertain to be a binding contract, and/or the parties did not intend to create legal relations by the agreement, and was therefore unenforceable. The Will was upheld.
