Background
“Your Kids are evil and they are stealing your property” is what Michael Gwilliam was told when he was writing down his will. 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.
Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026]
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. Doctors diagnosed persistent delusional disorder.
After discharge, Michael’s beliefs shifted. Now he believed his daughters had orchestrated his sectioning to steal his property. Joan and Sheila reinforced these ideas, telling him his daughters were “evil.”
That November, Michael made his first ever will. His daughters would share just 25 percent—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 court agreed
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 a will is, know their assets, and appreciate who might have claims on their estate and have no “disorder of the mind” that might “poison his 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’d conspired against him. That belief was symptomatic of his psychiatric disorder, not grounded in reality.
On fraudulent calumny, the court found Joan and Sheila had actively reinforced Michael’s delusions. 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 they knew to be untrue, designed to poison Michael against his children. Both grounds succeeded. The will fell, and intestacy applied.
The Lesson
In January 2026, the High Court set aside this will because evidence of Mr Gwilliam’s capacity was inadequate.
A paralegal 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, and his daughters inherited.
The lesson is clear: where there’s any history of mental illness or unusual hostility toward 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. If possible, follow the golden rule.
