Wife not prosecuted for changing husband's will

The High court has upheld a decision made by the Civil Prosecution Service (CPS). The decision was not to prosecute 3 people accused of changing Reginald Atkin’s will and trying to defraud HMRC. 

The CPS took the decision not to prosecute Constance Atkins, Brian Oxley and Jane Oxley after Reginald’s nephew, Charles, reported them. It was alleged that Constance induced Reginald to change his will in her favour shortly after they met in 2002. 

At the time, Reginald was 79 and in serious ill health. Shortly after changing his will, Reginald then transferred his property into joint names of himself and Constance before they later got married. 

In 2008, Reginald changed his will again. This time he completely excluded Charles, and left his whole estate to his wife’s son, Brian. Reginald died a few months later.

Charles entered a caveat in an attempt to stop Constance and her son Brian accessing Reginald’s estate. A caveat prevents a grant of probate being issued, which is a legal document usually needed to administer an estate. This is usually the first step when considering whether to contest a will. 

Charles entered the caveat as he claimed that the will was invalid as Reginald lacked testamentary capacity, or he was unduly influenced. The matter went before the court who said that Charles had to issue court proceedings challenging the validity of the will, otherwise his caveat would be removed and Charles would have to pay Constance’s costs. Charles decided not to issue court proceedings and therefore had to pay Constance’s legal costs which were £17,300.

Charles then issued a claim in the England and Wales High Court accusing Constance and Brian of trying to evade inheritance tax. Charles alleged that Reginald’s share of the property and his personal possession were not declared to HMRC. However, Charles’ claim was dismissed and he was ordered to pay a further £8,626.20 to Constance and Brian.

Several years later, Charles started a private prosecution against Constance, Brian and Jane. Charles notified the CPS and asked that they take over the prosecution. The CPS refused as there was no independent evidence that the three Oxleys exerted any undue influence over Reginald. 

Constance omitted to declare the house to HMRC for inheritance tax purposes, but there was no independent evidence that this was intentional rather than a mistake. The property had been listed on the form, but the value was missing. In any event, there would have been no inheritance tax payable on the property.  

Charles was not happy with the CPS’ decision not to prosecute and asked the High Court to review the decision. The court dismissed Charles’ application and said it was “totally without merit”. Charles was ordered to pay the CPS £1,507.20.

This case is a reminder that people should only pursue claims where there is sufficient evidence otherwise you could potentially be landed with a very high-cost order!

At Birkett Long we have a specialist contentious probate team who can advise you on whether there is sufficient evidence available to successfully contest a will. We also have experience dealing with a whole range of different claims against an estate, and disputes between beneficiaries and executors.  

If you need advice about a contentious estate, please contact our specialist inheritance disputes team on 01206 217307 or [email protected].