Disputes between siblings arising from the dominant role by one in caring for a parent are common.  It can lead to suspicions that the carer sibling is misusing of the parent’s money or the carer sibling is manipulating the vulnerability of the parent in the making of a will to their benefit.  Once relationships break down, the lack of communication feeds distrust and care of the parent is seen to be control of the parent.  

The judgment of His Honour Judge Keyser KC on 24 June 2025 of the case of Parfitt v Jones and another [2025] is a precise analysis of such circumstances.   The judgement demonstrates how siblings can misinterpret actions because of mistrust.

The case concerns the estate of Mrs Mary Wadge. Ten years before she died, Mary made a will in which the main beneficiary was her daughter, Carolyne.  She gave a smaller portion to her son, James, and nothing to her daughter, Vicky.   After Mary’s death in 2018, the will was challenged and eventually the High Court had to decide on the validity of the Will.

HHJ Keyser KC questioned the evidence provided by James and Vicky.

“I do not doubt that this interpretation was given in good faith, but it rested on knowledge of one side of the matter and an inadequate grasp of the realities of the relationship between Vicky and Mary.”

“In general, the defendants invite the inferences that Carolyne’s involvement in Mary’s affairs was manipulative and controlling and, in that light, that Mary must have made the Will as a result of Carolyne’s control over her. I do not make those inferences. The assistance that Carolyne gave her mother can properly be seen as filial service, whether that assistance related to matters of a legal or financial nature (such as banking, solicitors’ appointments or even shopping) or matters relating to Mary’s health..”

HHJ Keyser KC did not accept the malign interpretation of Carolyne’s actions as provided by the defendants as amounting to undue influence and held the Will to be valid.

Of course, there are cases where a dominating child has been shown to have manipulated a parent or misused their money at a point when the parent is frail and vulnerable.  If a claim is brought about the misuse of the parent’s money, there is likely to be a presumption of undue influence in the circumstances.   But there is no presumption of undue influence in claims against the validity of a will.   It is therefore easier to succeed in a claim of undue influence relating to purported gifts from the parent than a claim challenging the validity of a will on the grounds of undue influence. 

One of the obvious reasons for such claims failing is the lack of evidence of what was said between the dominant sibling and the parent.   In Schrader v Schrader, the court was willing to make a ruling that a will was obtained by undue influence on circumstantial evidence.  But it is rare that the court will do so.  In the more recent case of Rea v Rea, the Court of Appeal rejected a judgment for undue influence based on circumstantial evidence.  And in Parfitt v Jones, the dominant role played by the daughter Carolyne and her presence at the meeting in which the testator gave her instructions for the Will, were not sufficient factors to persuade the court that there had been undue influence.

Written by Justine McCool – Partner – Litigation