Capacity upheld but will still overturned: Lessons from Karim v Steele & Anor on undue influence

A recent High Court decision provides a striking reminder that even where a testator has capacity and understands their will, the surrounding circumstances can still render it invalid.

The High Court judgement in Karim v Steel & Anor (August 2025) illustrates how a will that is valid on its face may nonetheless be set aside where the context shows vulnerability, isolation and manipulation of the testator. Capacity and knowledge are not the end of the story; what matters is the environment and context in which the will was created.

Background: A vulnerable testator and a breakdown in longstanding care arrangements

The case concerned the estate of Shelia Carter, an elderly and vulnerable woman who suffered from a list of quite significant medical challenges. She lived with arthritis, experienced panic attacks and suffered from agoraphobia – all of which made it difficult for her to manage day-to-day life alone. She was not married and had no children so relied heavily on the people around her.

In 2006, the claimant, Ms Shanaz Karim and her children moved into Shelia’s home. Shelia expressly made clear that she wanted 24-hour care in return, and they became dependent on each other and formed a friendship. Over the years their relationship deepened:

• In 2007, Ms Karim loaned Shelia £50,000.
• The following year Shelia began paying Ms Karim £60 per week for housekeeping.
• Between 2007 and 2012, Ms Karim paid for a number of substantial improvements to Shelia’s property, including a loft conversion at £65,000 and a kitchen refurbishment at £15,000.
• The arrangement between Shelia and Ms Karim was formalised in a legal document in 2011.

In 2012, when she was aged 84, Shelia made a will leaving her entire estate to Ms Karim (apart from some jewellery which was left to a friend). This aligned with Shelia’s reported statements to friends that she intended to leave her home to Ms Karim.

Mr Quinn

During a hospital stay in 2013, by chance Shelia met Mr John Quinn and their relationship developed quickly.  Mr Quinn began visiting her regularly, involving himself in her affairs and repeatedly seeking to access her home. Once Shelia returned home, Mr Quinn continued visiting her. Those close to Shelia found this behaviour unusual and within a few months Ms Karim felt concerned enough to speak to the police, reporting that Mr Quinn appeared to be encouraging Shelia to change her will.

The relationship between Shelia and Ms Karim then deteriorated. Ms Karim left the property shortly after and her final payment of wages was made on 22 January 2014. Shelia then moved into a care home and reportedly told staff that Ms Karim was not allowed to visit.

The 2015 will

In 2015, Shelia, then aged 86, signed a new will in which Mr Quinn was the sole beneficiary. The way in which the will was prepared caused a number of concerns:

• The first contact with the will writing business, Damsons Future Planning, came from Mr Quinn’s wife.
• All instructions were taken over the telephone with no face-to-face meetings taking place with Shelia.
• No assessment was made of Shelia’s capacity or vulnerability.
• The alleged execution at the solicitor’s office was unsupported by evidence.
• The will writers were not Shelia’s usual solicitors and had not acted for her before.

Ms Karim’s claims

Ms Karim did not accept that the 2015 will was valid and issued a claim seeking to have it overturned on various grounds. The claim was unusual in that Ms Karim acted in person and Mr Quinn did not participate in the proceedings so filed no evidence to defend the 2015 will. The case was decided on the papers without a hearing.

1. The claims were:

• A challenge to the validity of the 2015 will alleging:
  • Lack of testamentary capacity
  • Lack of knowledge and approval
  • Undue influence
  • Fraudulent calumny 

2. A proprietary estoppel claim, arguing that Shelia had promised Ms Karim the house, which Ms Karim had relied on to her detriment (as it transpired, the Court did not determine this issue due to the outcome of the will challenge). 

Key legal principles

1. Testamentary capacity

Applying the well-known case of Banks v Goodfellow, the Court held that Shelia had capacity. Although she was vulnerable, the evidence suggested she could understand what a will was, what her estate consisted of, and who might reasonably expect to inherit. Medical records supported this finding as she was deemed to have a sound cognitive state during the relevant period. 

2. Knowledge and approval

The Court accepted that Shelia probably understood the contents of the 2015 will. It was a simple document and nothing in the evidence suggested she was unaware of its contents and effect.

3. Undue influence

While there was no direct evidence of undue influence, the circumstantial evidence was strong and consistent. The Court noted:

• Shelia was elderly when she made the will, was physically frail and psychologically vulnerable.
• Medical professionals had previously flagged a risk of undue influence.
• Mr Quinn had isolated Shelia from her friends and support network.
• Mr Quinn initiated contact with the will writers and was central to the will making process.
• The 2015 will was very different to her previous 2012 will.

Despite the lack of direct evidence, taken together the Court found these factors compelling enough to conclude that the 2015 will had been procured through undue influence and so was invalid.

4. Fraudulent calumny

The Court accepted Mr Quinn had made false statements to Shelia so that she changed her mind about Ms Karim which contributed to the change of her will. The Court determined that Shelia was misled into distrusting Ms Karim through these false allegations – and so the claim for fraudulent calumny succeeded too.

The decision

The Court therefore held that Shelia had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of her 2015 will. However, it held the will was invalid on the ground of undue influence and fraudulent calumny. The Court found that Mr Quinn exploited Shelia’s vulnerabilities with the aim to obtain financial benefit. The 2015 will was accordingly set aside and the 2012 will reinstated so that Ms Karim was the main beneficiary.

Practical takeaways for practitioners

• Capacity alone is not enough. A Will may still be overturned if the testator is isolated, vulnerable and under emotional pressure.
• Take instructions independently. Where possible ensure instructions are taken privately and face-to-face with just the testator.
• Be alert to sudden or drastic changes in wishes, especially where a long-standing beneficiary is being replaced.
• Record everything, keep records of the reasons for any change, any vulnerabilities, capacity assessments and attendance notes.
• For families with concerns, early advice is critical; the sooner concerns are raised, the stronger evidential position.

Conclusion

Karim v Steele is a timely reminder that the context surrounding the preparation and execution of a will is crucially important.

While a will may appear valid on its face, where the surrounding circumstances reveal manipulation, dependency or undue pressure, the Court will review those circumstances when concerns are raised and may rule that the will is overturned. It is always wise in such circumstances to seek expert legal advice as soon as possible.
 

Our content explained